On 11/18/12 6:13 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 18.11.2012 15:05, Andrey Zonov wrote: >> 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. > > My patch for mbuf* zone auto-sizing does fix that, or not? >
Are you talking about r242910? I have not tried it. -- Andrey Zonov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature