Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:18:19 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Network performance tuning. Message-ID: <20010712211819.D6664@sneakerz.org> In-Reply-To: <200107130128.f6D1SFE59148@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 06:28:15PM -0700 References: <15.16ffaf54.287f3d4d@aol.com> <20010712135629.A49042@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <200107130128.f6D1SFE59148@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [010712 20:28] wrote: > > This is fairly easy to do for the transmit side of things and would > yield an immediate improvement in available mbuf space. For the receive > side of things we can't really do anything with existing connections > (because we've already advertised that the space is available to the > remote end), but we can certainly reduce the buffer space we reserve > for new connections. If the system is handling a large number of > connections then this sort of scaling will work fairly well due to > attrition. Actually, we can shrink the window, but that's strongly discouraged by a lot of papers/books. > 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? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? 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?20010712211819.D6664>