[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: netbsd-users
Subject: Re: Question about nmbclusters
From: David Young <dyoung () pobox ! com>
Date: 2013-05-26 23:58:47
Message-ID: 20130526235846.GG3453 () pobox ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:11:04PM +0200, Konrad Neuwirth wrote:
> Okay, this is getting more puzzling.
> Am 23.05.2013 um 03:50 schrieb yancm:
>
> > On 2013-05-22 19:07, Konrad Neuwirth wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> > I am pretty sure you will need to compile this into a new kernel.
> > I have used:
> > options NKMEMPAGES=98352
> > options NMBCLUSTERS=65568
>
> I did. We are running the new kernel now, and it contains the following:
>
> options NKMEMPAGES=98352
> options NMBCLUSTERS=262140
This probably won't help with the particular problem at hand, but I will
make a few general observations about clusters.
262140 clusters is about 512 megabytes. Typically no less than a
quarter of it is wasted because the kernel loads the 2kB buffers with
1500-byte ethernet frames. I figure there's a lot more waste than
that because you may have hundreds or thousands of clusters dormant on
receive rings, clusters containing runty packets, etc.
Ignoring waste and overhead for a minute, 512 megs is enough memory to
buffer more than 4 seconds of packets if you're receiving them at 1
gigabit/second. If your box is just a router and it's not forwarding
more than 1 Gb/s, you don't ordinarily need or want to buffer so many
packets.
For a box with many active socket servers, it may be reasonable to
buffer >4 seconds of packets, however, it seems to me that the kernel
should shift packets from the kernel's maps & limits and onto the user
servers' maps & limits much more aggressively than it does, today.
So you see there is lots of room for improvement.
Dave
--
David Young
dyoung@pobox.com Urbana, IL (217) 721-9981
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic