From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 30 14:14:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ussenterprise.ufp.org (ussenterprise.ufp.org [208.185.30.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0380837B419 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:14:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bicknell@localhost) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id fAUMEIr96867; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:14:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bicknell) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:14:18 -0500 From: Leo Bicknell To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Luigi Rizzo , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCP Performance Graphs Message-ID: <20011130171418.B96592@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alfred Perlstein , Luigi Rizzo , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20011130102928.E30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130141100.B90969@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130112215.H30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130135042.G46769@elvis.mu.org> <20011130135402.H46769@elvis.mu.org> <20011130125839.A88302@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130102928.E30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130141100.B90969@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130112215.H30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130135042.G46769@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011130135042.G46769@elvis.mu.org>; from bright@mu.org on Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:50:42PM -0600 Organization: United Federation of Planets Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG First off, apologies to Luigi, I was shooting off my mouth. Second off: On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:50:42PM -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > I was about to set the default in -stable to Leo's suggested values, > it seems that -current already has the delta he wants in it, > my question is, was anything else changed along the lines of the > number of nmbclusters allocated in -current to go along with > this change? On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:54:02PM -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > It seems not, I've committed the change. When I proposed this before there was a bit of a debate about needing to increase clusters and MBUF's. To summarize, I think we took the following away from it: * For most users it makes no difference, as they are far from the limits. * This will make a small number of people who aren't hitting limits now hit an MBUF limit. - These people probably need increases anyway, as they are too close to the limit now. - Hitting the MBUF limit is fairly, well, harsh, and we might want to add syslog or other logged warnings at like 90% utilization or something. At a minimum I think: * There needs to be a note in the errata for the release this goes in mentioning more MBUF's might be needed. * LINT should be updated with a comment and a value 2 to 4 times GENERIC's default as the default listed value. * The logging at 90% usage should be investigated. I can probably generate patches for that over the weekend, provided I can find a good way to rate limit them. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message