Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609291712290.66811@niwun.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com> <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Randall Stewart wrote: > Hmm.. I would think 512b and 1K will not show any > improvement.. since they would probably end up either > in an mbuf chain.. or a single 2k (or maybe 4k) cluster.. I know, I just want to make sure that it doesn't somehow cause performance loss for those cases! > In fact I have always thought we should: > > a) have no data portion in an mbuf.. just pointers i.e. always > an EXT > > b) Have a 256/512 and 1k cluster too.. Implement and benchmark it. :) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.58.0609291712290.66811>