Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:13:55 -0700 From: Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com> To: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating our TCP and socket sysctl values... Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ptv617t0KhgNrcxTUzLmQd0eLFBf2x4%2BP7EAL@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <132388F1-44D9-45C9-AE05-1799A7A2DCD9@neville-neil.com> References: <132388F1-44D9-45C9-AE05-1799A7A2DCD9@neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:37 PM, George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Howdy, > > I believe it's time for us to upgrade our sysctl values for TCP sockets s= o that > they are more in line with the modern world. =A0At the moment we have the= se limits on > our buffering: > > kern.ipc.maxsockbuf: 262144 > net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max: 262144 > net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max: 262144 > > I believe it's time to up these values to something that's in line with h= igher speed > local networks, such as 10G. =A0Perhaps it's time to move these to 2MB in= stead of 256K. > > Thoughts? 256KB seems adequate for 10G (as long as the consumer can keep draining the socket rcv buffer fast enough). If you consider 2 x bandwidth delay product to be a reasonable socket buffer size then 256K allows for 10G networks with ~100ms delays. Normally the delay is _way_ less than this for 10G and even 256K may be an overkill (but this is ok, the kernel has tcp_do_autorcvbuf on by default) While we're here discussing defaults, what about nmbclusters and nmbjumboXX? Now those haven't kept up with modern machines (imho). Regards, Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=ptv617t0KhgNrcxTUzLmQd0eLFBf2x4%2BP7EAL>