From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Apr 24 14:40:24 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06244
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06239
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from julian@whistle.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00867;
	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22)
 via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd000864; Fri Apr 24 21:30:44 1998
Message-ID: <3541033E.5656AEC7@whistle.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:25:18 -0700
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Organization: Whistle Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.5-RELEASE i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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.
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980424165606.18437A-100000@echonyc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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