Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:07:57 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf external buffer reference counters Message-ID: <20020711220757.A2476@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10207111913160.46046-100000@kronos.networkrichmond.com>; from kbyanc@posi.net on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:31:17PM -0400 References: <20020711171255.A19014@unixdaemons.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10207111913160.46046-100000@kronos.networkrichmond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:31:17PM -0400, Kelly Yancey wrote:
> > This is a good observation if we're going to be doing benchmarking,
> > but I'm not sure whether the repercussions are that important (unless,
> > as I said, there's a lot of applications that send exactly 8192
> > byte chunks?). Basically, what we're doing is shifting the optimal
> > send size when using exactly 4 clusters, in this case, to (8192 - 16)
> > bytes. We can still send with exactly 4 clusters, it's just that the
> > optimal send size is a little different, that's all (this produces a
> > small shift in block send benchmark curves, usually).
> >
>
> Are you kidding? Benchmarks, presumably like every other piece of
> software produced by someone trying to get the most performance out of
> the system, are more likely to have power-of-two write buffers. Are you
> willing to risk that they didn't also just happen to pick a multiple of
> 2^11?
>
> Yes, it seems elegant to put the counters in the space that is normally
> unused for receive mbuf clusters, but you can't just blow off Luigi's
> point regarding the send side.
First of all, I'm not "blowing off" anyone's comments. I don't
appreciate the fact that you're eagerly instructing me to "not blow off
comments" (which I didn't do to begin with) without providing any more
constructive feedback.
All I pointed out was that the optimal block size is merely changed
from an exact 2k, 4k, 8k, etc. to something slightly smaller. What
point are *you* trying to put across? Tell me what's bad about that
or, better:
Do you have a better suggestion to make? What do *you* suggest we do
with the external ref. counts? Please, spare me the flame bait. I
wasn't being confrontational when I answered Luigi's post and I don't
need anyone turning this into something confrontational. Thanks.
> Kelly
>
> --
> Kelly Yancey -- kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org}
--
Bosko Milekic
bmilekic@unixdaemons.com
bmilekic@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020711220757.A2476>