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>