svn commit: r242847 - in head/sys: i386/include kern

[Andrey Zonov]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20121118/9773d86b/attachment.sig>