On 11/11/12 3:04 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote: >>>> This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It >>>> really needs to be something like "nmbclusters defaults to 6% of >>>> physical ram, with machine dependent limits". The MD limits are bad >>>> enough, and using bogo-units like "maxusers" just makes it worse. >>> >>> Yes, that would be optimal. >>> >> No it would not. >> >> I used to be able to tell people "hey just try increasing maxusers" >> and they would and suddenly the >> box would be OK. >> >> Now I'll have to remember 3,4,5,10,20x tunable to increase? > > No. The whole mbuf and cluster stuff isn't allocated or reserved > at boot time. We simply need a limit to prevent it from exhausting > all available kvm / physical memory whichever is less. >
For now, we have limit which does not allow to run even one igb(4) NIC in 9k jumbo configuration. > Other than that there is no relation to maxusers except historic > behavior. > > So the ideal mbuf limit is just short of keeling the kernel over > no matter what maxusers says. There also isn't much to tune then > as the only fix would be to add more physical ram. > -- Andrey Zonov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
