On 11/12/12 10:01 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 12.11.2012 18:43, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:27 AM, Andre Oppermann <opperm...@networx.ch>
wrote:
On 12.11.2012 09:52, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/11/12 11:28 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 12.11.2012 08:10, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
I noticed that TCBHASHSIZE does not autotune.
What do you think of the following algorithm?
Basically round down to next power of two based on nmbclusters / 64.
Please wait out for a real fix of the various mbuf-whatever tuning
issue I'll propose shortly. This approach may become inapproriate.
Also the mbuf limits can be changed at runtime by sysctl.
What is the timeline you are asking for to wait?
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242910
Very cool!
So instead of nmbclusters, will maxsockets work? Ideas/suggestions?
I've already added the tunable "kern.maxmbufmem" which is in pages.
That's probably not very convenient to work with. I can change it
to a percentage of phymem/kva. Would that make you happy?
It really makes sense to have the hash table be some relation to sockets
rather than buffers.
If you are hashing "foo-objects" you want the hash to be some relation
to the max amount of "foo-objects" you'll see, not backwards derived
from the number of "bar-objects" that "foo-objects" contain, right?
Because we are hashing the sockets, right? not clusters.
Maybe I'm wrong? I'm open to ideas.
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
