On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:11, David Miller wrote: > From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:23:01 +0200 > > > The problem is to find out what a good boundary is. > > The more I think about this the more I lean towards > two conclusions: > > 1) dynamic table growth is the only reasonable way to > handle this and not waste memory in all cases
Yes, but even with dynamic growth you still need some upper boundary (otherwise a DOS could eat all your memory). And it would need to be figured out what it is. BTW does dynamic shrink after a load spike make sense too? > 2) for cases where we haven't implemented dynamic > table growth, specifying a proper limit argument > to the hash table allocation is a sufficient > solution for the time being Agreed, just we don't know what the proper limits are. I guess it would need someone running quite a lot of benchmarks. Anyone volunteering? @) Or do some cheesy default and document the options to change it clearly and wait for feedback from users on what works for them? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
