From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 30 17:34:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from iguana.aciri.org (iguana.aciri.org [192.150.187.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2413837B416 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by iguana.aciri.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id fB11UX934916; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:30:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:30:33 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Mike Silbersack Cc: Leo Bicknell , Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCP Performance Graphs Message-ID: <20011130173033.G33041@iguana.aciri.org> References: <20011130171418.B96592@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i 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 On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:19:18PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > * The logging at 90% usage should be investigated. I can probably ... > Luigi, Jonathan and I had already been discussing this idea before this > this thread even started. If you come up with a good patch to do this, I just committed to current (and soon to stable) some code to log _failures_ in mbuf allocations, but that is only meant as an aid to remove worse code in the drivers. I'd be inclined to say that the XX% monitoring is better done by userlevel daemons periodically polling the mbuf stats, rather than doing some extra work every time you allocate or free an mbuf. (Plus, just setting a threshold is not good, you also want some histeresys, because you can easily conceive a system that runs at XX % mbuf occupation, whatever XX you pick.) cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message