Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:30:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: NetBSD network code improvements Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980502132010.28278t-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <199805020641.XAA17167@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 May 1998, David Greenman wrote: > >>>I think A lot of their stuff is generally useful, the MTU discovery > >>>stuff for example (although I don't exactly know what is in -current > >>>and maybe we don't need to integrate NetBSD stuff). > >> > >> We've had Path MTU Discovery in FreeBSD for a couple of years now. It > >>includes support for timing out clone routes. > > > >This is sortof unrelated, but how does our syn flood code compare to the > >NetBSD syn cache mechanism? The syn cache code seems like a generally > >good idea.. > > I think it might be more correct to say "the BSD/OS syn cache mechanism", > since that's where the idea originated, although I don't know if the NetBSD > code is their own or if it came from BSDI. > Yes, I think the SYN cache is probably something we should have. I'm not > overly thrilled, however since I think it unnecessarily obscures the code > and of course slows it down a bit. A similar style of thing could help for TIME_WAIT too. I'm afraid I don't keep up with the FreeBSD stack as much as I would like, but a quick glance doesn't make it appear like it is there. ie. keep minimal state for TIME_WAIT, optimize the timeout handling to check less frequently for TIME_WAIT timers, etc. From what I have seen, this can make a big difference on a system with a lot of TIME_WAITs. 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?Pine.BSF.3.95.980502132010.28278t-100000>