On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> assistance (John Dyson's work on the unified VM and
> buffer cache predated all such non-academic work in
> all commercial UNIX implementations by almost two years,
> and included cache coloring, which was a brand new
> concept, at the time). FreeBSD
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Back to swapping socket structures...
>
> You could swap them if you wanted to give up some KVA
> space to be able to do it.
Which is a problem, especially for Linux. The problem
here is that there are x86 machines around with 64GB of
RAM. Linux has j
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> > I don't think this represents the biggest problem
> > you would face, though. It is far more likely that
> > hung or slow connections (e.g. the originator goes
> > away without disconnecting the socket or the
> >
void wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:04:22AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> >
> > A web proxy could be
> > round-robined fairly easily, but for a mail relay it
> > is often a good idea to split the incoming and outgoing
> > mail into two separate round robins (two separate grou
"Ashutosh S. Rajekar" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > Their 3200 only has 1G of RAM; you could _barely_ fit the
> > TCP state for 1,000,000 connections into just 1G of RAM,
> > and have a tiny amount left over for buffers, drivers,
> > the rest of your kernel, etc.. I
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> "Ashutosh S. Rajekar" wrote:
> > > I guess we beat you to the punch...
> > >
> > > We have a product which is now shipping, and which currently
> > > supports 1,000,000 concurrent connections.
> >
> > I guess quite a lot of people are at it right now, the prime
> > one is
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> I don't think this represents the biggest problem you would face,
> though. It is far more likely that hung or slow connections
> (e.g. the originator goes away without disconnecting the socket
> or the originator is on a slow link) will
:
:On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:04:22AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
:>
:> A web proxy could be
:> round-robined fairly easily, but for a mail relay it is often a good
:> idea to split the incoming and outgoing mail into two separate round
:> robins (two separate groups of machines).
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:04:22AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> A web proxy could be
> round-robined fairly easily, but for a mail relay it is often a good
> idea to split the incoming and outgoing mail into two separate round
> robins (two separate groups of machines).
Why's th
:
:On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
:> This is fairly easy to do. You can use SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF
:> socket opts to adjust the tcp buffer space. You can make the default
:> small and receive-centric and when you think you've got a good
:> connection you can pump it
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Their 3200 only has 1G of RAM; you could _barely_ fit the
> TCP state for 1,000,000 connections into just 1G of RAM,
> and have a tiny amount left over for buffers, drivers,
> the rest of your kernel, etc.. I can't believe that their
> 3100 (only 512M
"Ashutosh S. Rajekar" wrote:
> > I guess we beat you to the punch...
> >
> > We have a product which is now shipping, and which currently
> > supports 1,000,000 concurrent connections.
>
> I guess quite a lot of people are at it right now, the prime
> one is NetScaler. If I'm not wrong, they brag
> I guess we beat you to the punch...
>
> We have a product which is now shipping, and which currently
> supports 1,000,000 concurrent connections.
I guess quite a lot of people are at it right now, the prime one is
NetScaler. If I'm not wrong, they brag about a million connections or so,
on a
"Ashutosh S. Rajekar" wrote:
> > For the diskless case I don't know if you can make
> > it to a million simultanious connections, but Terry
> > has gotten his boxes to do a hundred thousand so we
> > know that at least is doable. But rather then spend a
>
> Hmmm. I wonder how muc
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> This is fairly easy to do. You can use SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF
> socket opts to adjust the tcp buffer space. You can make the default
> small and receive-centric and when you think you've got a good
> connection you can pump it up.
>
>
:
:On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
:> to handle more then 250 requests/sec. With the connection load you
:> want to handle, the chance of the data being cacheable in ram is
:> fairly low. So a disk-based caching proxy will drop connection
:> performance by two orders
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> to handle more then 250 requests/sec. With the connection load you
> want to handle, the chance of the data being cacheable in ram is
> fairly low. So a disk-based caching proxy will drop connection
> performance by two orders of magnit
:Well, we are building a web accelerator box called WebEnhance, that would
:support around a million TCP/IP connections (brag .. brag..). It would
:selectively function as a Layer 2/4/7 switch. And its going to run a
:kernel proxy, and probably nothing significant in user mode. It might be
:diskl
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Don't worry about the MMU. Tests have shown that while 4MB pages are
> nice, the performance boost is relatively minor. The kernel maps itself
> using 4MB pages but normal 4K pte's are used for kernel allocations.
>
> What you are doin
:An associated question: along with this, changing the kernel to use only
:PDEs should be better for TLB performance. Mapping 4Mb at a time would
:definitely be much better than 4k. I'm talking of having the entire kernel
:(at least the code) find mappings in the TLB, and keeping 4Mb mappings
:mig
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> DG changed KERNBASE a while back to reserve a gigabyte of VM for the
> kernel. This should be sufficient on a 4G machine but it depends where
> your resources are going. If your server's resources are user-process
> centric then you d
>
>:Hi,
>:
>:I'm trying to give the kernel (4.0-RELEASE) 2Gb of memory to work with. I
>:can afford to have 4Gb of physical memory on one of my servers, and hence
>:the experiments.
>:
>:Is it safe to play around with KERNBASE, and get away without breaking
>:code ? Is there any other advisable m
:Hi,
:
:I'm trying to give the kernel (4.0-RELEASE) 2Gb of memory to work with. I
:can afford to have 4Gb of physical memory on one of my servers, and hence
:the experiments.
:
:Is it safe to play around with KERNBASE, and get away without breaking
:code ? Is there any other advisable method if
Hi,
I'm trying to give the kernel (4.0-RELEASE) 2Gb of memory to work with. I
can afford to have 4Gb of physical memory on one of my servers, and hence
the experiments.
Is it safe to play around with KERNBASE, and get away without breaking
code ? Is there any other advisable method if this one
24 matches
Mail list logo
