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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
