Peter, can you let me know what you think?
-Alfred
On 11/7/12 11:46 PM, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
[[ + peter ]]
Folks, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to resolve
maxusers scaling in a happy way for all.
I think I came up
On 11/8/12 1:22 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Peter,
I agree.
It's certainly not perfect, however it's not nearly as bogus as what was there
previously.
I know "maxusers" is "wrong", however what it really means, if you think about it, is
"gi
On 08.11.2012 08:46, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
[[ + peter ]]
Folks, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to resolve
maxusers scaling in a happy way for all.
I think I came up with a solution.
This solution should work for i386,
On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I agree.
>
> It's certainly not perfect, however it's not nearly as bogus as what was
> there previously.
>
> I know "maxusers" is "wrong", however what it really means, if you think
> about it, is "give me a scaling factor that
Peter,
I agree.
It's certainly not perfect, however it's not nearly as bogus as what was
there previously.
I know "maxusers" is "wrong", however what it really means, if you think
about it, is "give me a scaling factor that is relative to physical ram,
BUT capped at some value so as to not
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> [[ + peter ]]
>
> Folks, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to resolve
> maxusers scaling in a happy way for all.
>
> I think I came up with a solution.
>
> This solution should work for i386, and other 32 bit platforms,
[[ + peter ]]
Folks, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to resolve
maxusers scaling in a happy way for all.
I think I came up with a solution.
This solution should work for i386, and other 32 bit platforms, as well
as scaling well for 64 bit (or higher) platforms that have
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05:51 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:46:21AM +, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Author: alfred
> > Date: Thu Oct 25 01:46:20 2012
> > New Revision: 242029
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242029
> >
> > Log:
> > Allow auto
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:46:21AM +, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
...
Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_param.c
==
--- head/sys/kern/subr_param.c Thu Oct 25 01:27:01 2012
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Author: alfred
> Date: Thu Oct 25 01:46:20 2012
> New Revision: 242029
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242029
>
> Log:
> Allow autotune maxusers > 384 on 64 bit machines
>
> A default install on large memory machines with
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:46:21AM +, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Author: alfred
> Date: Thu Oct 25 01:46:20 2012
> New Revision: 242029
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242029
>
> Log:
> Allow autotune maxusers > 384 on 64 bit machines
>
> A default install on large memory ma
Author: alfred
Date: Thu Oct 25 01:46:20 2012
New Revision: 242029
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242029
Log:
Allow autotune maxusers > 384 on 64 bit machines
A default install on large memory machines with multiple 10gigE interfaces
were not being given enough mbufs to do ful
12 matches
Mail list logo
