** Reply to note from Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 30 Jul 2003 15:24:53 -0400

> You're probably right

Then I'll try the upgrade and see what happens.

> although that is a very small number of mbufs. 

In fact, I happened to think that to.

> Are you deliberately setting it low?


> Maybe by specifying "maxusers" in your kernel config?

I have maxusers 0, which should mean "auto", shouldn't it?

In fact on another machine I manage I have: 

91/528/18304 mbufs in use (current/peak/max):
        90 mbufs allocated to data
        1 mbufs allocated to packet headers
64/216/4576 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max)
564 Kbytes allocated to network (4% of mb_map in use)
0 requests for memory denied
0 requests for memory delayed
0 calls to protocol drain routines

but here I've got four times the amount of RAM (0.5GB vs. 128MB).

 bye & Thanks

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to