From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 15 17:47:52 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B02B37B40C
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD09C43F93
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6G0lZM7030892;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200307160047.h6G0lZM7030892@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: silby@silby.com
In-Reply-To: <20030715173449.R18075@odysseus.silby.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Kernel tuning for large maxsockets
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:47:53 -0000

On 15 Jul, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Scot Loach wrote:
> 
>> Is there any reason I should not modify the kernel code to only let a small,
>> fixed number of raw and divert pcbs be preallocated instead of having them
>> scale with maxsockets?
> 
> Your idea is sound.
> 
>> Next, does this seem like a generally useful thing that could be rolled back
>> into the source tree?  I could make this a kernel option or a tunable sysctl
>> variable.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Scot Loach
> 
> A tunable maximum for each of those settings sounds good, that should fit
> well in subr_param.c.  Send me your patch when it's done, and I'll look
> into incorporating it.

I'd prefer separate tunables.  I suspect that it is also common to have
vastly different requirements for the numbers of TCP and UDP sockets.