Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:32:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: benedict@echonyc.com (Snob Art Genre) Cc: kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <199804241932.VAA22011@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980424165606.18437A-100000@echonyc.com> from "Snob Art Genre" at Apr 24, 98 05:00:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Stevens suggests on p. 297 of TCP/IPv3 that "It appears that an mbuf > cluster should be used sooner (e.g.for the 100-byte point) to reduce the > processing time." > > What are the relative merits of increasing the size of mbufs vs. going > right to clusters? a cluster is 2 KB, an mbuf is 8-16 times smaller. Moreover, a cluster also requires an associated mbuf, so you lose in locality of references, etc. I may be completely wrong, but I'd say that the most effective thing would be to have mbufs large enough to hold the whole packet in most cases. It remains to see how much memory you can afford to waste. cheers luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804241932.VAA22011>