Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:40:40 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Message-ID: <20000703154040.V18942@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007031504550.1127-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>; from bmilekic@dsuper.net on Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 03:20:22PM -0400 References: <7941.962650295@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007031504550.1127-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 03:20:22PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > Considering the prominence of DoS attacks and similar, I think it > > makes a lot of sense to be able to free the memory again, and if > > the hysteresis you have built in means that there is no measurable > > performance impact I think you will face no objections. > > That was one of the reasons of writing. Oh, and there's something I > forgot to mention previously. The code I presently have frees memory > dedicated to mbufs, so obviously, it's significant, but it's even > more significant in the case of mbuf clusters, as they are larger. I > still haven't finished writing the cluster stuff though but expect it > to be similar in concept and design. Just to add a little real worldness here: I'd love to have FreeBSD be able to reclaim memory quicker at the sacrifice of a few cpu cycles. Why? Well, the "add more memory" arguement doesn't work well when I get DoS attacks that will eat any memory available because they can connect quicker then I can reclaim the memory. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CHIMES e-mail: billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org / ircadmin@lsl.com 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?20000703154040.V18942>