Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:25:18 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>, Kenjiro Cho <kjc@csl.sony.co.jp>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <3541033E.5656AEC7@whistle.com> References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980424165606.18437A-100000@echonyc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Snob Art Genre wrote: > > 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? uses less memory and is less work, for packets in the 100-240 byte range. It uses more memory but the same work for packets in the 1-100 byte range. slightly more memory for packets int he 240+ range but the same work. but 1/ memory is getting cheaper 2/ 100<N<240 byte packets are getting very common. > > 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3541033E.5656AEC7>