Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:50:42 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: strange results with increased net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011164834.0728c2e0@marble.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <200110112038.f9BKclh17562@arch20m.dellroad.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011121308.053ddc20@marble.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:38 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: >[ jumping into the middle of this discussion... ] > >Mike Tancsa writes: > > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen from 50 to 100. and there didnt seem to be > > any positive results in terms of lessening the rate of > > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_drops. > >This is consistent with the situation where packets are received >at a rate faster than they are being consumed. No matter how big >your queue is, it's going to fill up eventually and overflow, and >all you're doing by increasing the queue length is adding latency >to all of those packets that you do process. Hi, thanks for the info. But wont I still pay a price, presumably at the application layer for any packets that are lost and retransmitted ? Apart from pinging the other side of the OC-3 or ethernet connection and measuring the response time, how can I see how much latency is added by increasing these buffers ? ---Mike 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?5.1.0.14.0.20011011164834.0728c2e0>