Re: Keeping a lot of states

2004-03-16 Thread Philipp Buehler
On 16/03/2004, Jedi/Sector One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote To Cedric Berger: No, i386 current pmap support is very poor, and won't allow you to reliably allocate more than 64M of RAM. Thanks for the clarification. Which is not completly correct, like some insane guy showed us on misc@ or

Re: Another clue why pf didn't meet goal in first test

2004-03-16 Thread jared r r spiegel
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:54:36PM -0500, Dr. David Johnson wrote: I think the only other data that may help is that my friend says his DSL link is supposed to be 144 up, and 288 down, but in using some Internet sites that are supposed to measure speed, these show downloads of only about a

Re: Another clue why pf didn't meet goal in first test

2004-03-16 Thread Lars Hansson
if it is just a queueing problem, first thing i would think to do is fix the $ext_if bandwidth setting... i don't know VoIP, but perhaps it doesn't need to use alot of bandwidth, but wants a low delay. consider HFSC? Speaking from my, very short, experience HFSC seems to be the

Re: Keeping a lot of states

2004-03-16 Thread Paul B. Henson
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Jedi/Sector One wrote: What is the highest safe value I should raise NMBCLUSTERS to on x86? How many states max will it keep? We're running an X86 box with 512MB ram, nmbclusters = 8192, nkmempages = 81920, and a state limit of 100. In testing I got up to about

Re: Keeping a lot of states

2004-03-16 Thread Jedi/Sector One
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:24:36PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: We're running an X86 box with 512MB ram, nmbclusters = 8192, nkmempages = 81920 Didn't Cedric say that nkmempages 16384 on x86 was instable? Did you test it that way for a long time? -- __ /*-Frank DENIS (Jedi/Sector