From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Apr 24 14:01:35 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29841
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29834
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from benedict@echonyc.com)
Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost)
	by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA20582;
	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:01:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com>
To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
cc: Kenjiro Cho <kjc@csl.sony.co.jp>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc.
In-Reply-To: <199804241155.NAA21152@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980424165606.18437A-100000@echonyc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> actually i was going to ask next if there are stats on the size of
> packets, to see if it would be worthwhile increasing the size of an
> MBUF to 256 bytes.

Stevens suggests on p. 297 of TCP/IPv3 that "It appears that an mbuf
cluster should be used sooner (e.g.for the 100-byte point) to reduce the
processing time."

What are the relative merits of increasing the size of mbufs vs. going
right to clusters?


 Ben

"You have your mind on computers, it seems." 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message