On Thursday 06 September 2007, Bill Marquette wrote: > On 9/5/07, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another way to go is setting the queuelength for the internal > > processing queue to something insanely high (1000+). This will most > > likely work around the problem at the cost of burning (mbuf) memory. > > Assuming mbuf memory is essentially free that's certainly not a > problem for me. Is this the max ifqlen patch you had me try last > week? If so, what's a reasonably (relative to insanely high :)) > number to set that multiplier to? 2 times queue length "helped". I > don't want to set it so high that the box panics or something silly :) > Or for that matter, stops forwarding traffic while processing. We'll > give these patches a try in our lab shortly. We just started getting > the Smartbits online to try and duplicate the errors (straight up udp > testing can't replicate it).
Try 1000 (or 20 * maxifqlen iirc). -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
