On 16-Mar-2004 Mike Jakubik wrote:
>
> Got it. In just curious though... realistically, how big of an impact on
> performance is this on a modern CPU? Is it not simply the original 32bit
> calculation x 2?
Please, just search the mailing list archives. We've already had this
discussion in depth.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:36:21AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> I believe that the expense is that acting on the counters can not be
> both cheap and atomic at the same time..
> I think we need a whole pile of atomic primatives in addition to what we
> already have. including an atomic refer
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Brooks Davis wrote:
BD>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:48:21PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
BD>> Max Laier said:
BD>>
BD>> > Sure, you measure it ;) ... no, of course it is more expensive to update a
BD>> > 64bit counter on a 32bit arch, but the key (once again) is descision:
BD>> >
Max Laier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Hello,
It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even ha
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > > see an accurate dis
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > se
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:23:37PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > > s
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:23:37PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > > s
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have
> > t
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:48:21PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Max Laier said:
>
> > Sure, you measure it ;) ... no, of course it is more expensive to update a
> > 64bit counter on a 32bit arch, but the key (once again) is descision:
> > While
> > (almost) all of the pf counters are 64bit types y
Max Laier said:
> Sure, you measure it ;) ... no, of course it is more expensive to update a
> 64bit counter on a 32bit arch, but the key (once again) is descision:
> While
> (almost) all of the pf counters are 64bit types you can configure it not
> to
> use the loginterface or whatsoever more. So
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:18:43PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Max Laier said:
>
> > There is now: pf comes with 64bit statistic counters. For now you can put
> > them on one interface only, but in future version there will be more
> > flexible statistics. Additionally there are many accounting p
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> > se
Max Laier said:
> There is now: pf comes with 64bit statistic counters. For now you can put
> them on one interface only, but in future version there will be more
> flexible statistics. Additionally there are many accounting programs out
> there which utilize various existing (32bit) counters or t
Brooks Davis said:
>
> Please read the archives of freebsd-net. This has been discussed
> many times. There are valid reasons for this, particularly the fact
> that 64-bit counters are much more expensive to update on 32-bit
> architectures. API breakage is also a problem. We're aware that 2^32
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have
> thi
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have
> thi
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:38:28PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
> around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
> see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have
> this, as 4 GB i
Hello,
It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at
around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to
see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have
this, as 4 GB is just not that much anymore. I know this is a 32bit
limitatio
19 matches
Mail list logo
