* Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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 [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'?
And why do my programs keep crashing in it?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
