Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:27:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Network performance tuning. Message-ID: <20010712212051.K21859-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20010712211819.D6664@sneakerz.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [010712 20:28] wrote: > > Actually, we can shrink the window, but that's strongly discouraged > by a lot of papers/books. I doubt you really need to shrink the window ever - the fact that you've hit the mbuf limit basically enforces that limit. And, if we're only upping the limit based on actual ACKing of data, there's no (major) DoS issue. However, it would be nice to have the ability to shrink the window, specifically in the case where there *is* a DoS going on. :) > > So in regards to Leo's suggestions. I think we can bump up our current > > defaults, and I would support increasing the 16384 default to 24576 or > > possibly even 32768 as well as increasing the number of mbufs. But > > that is only a stopgap measure. What we really need to do is what I > > just described. > > It doesn't sound too bad to just double the current values, are you going > to commit it? I'd like to do this also, provided that we also change the mbuf to cluster ratio from 4/1 to 2/1. This will ensure that the doubled per-socket memory usage doesn't cause systems to run out of clusters earlier than before. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010712212051.K21859-100000>