On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Glen Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:48:40AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 7/15/13 5:44 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > >On 15.07.2013 08:38, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > >>On 13.07.2013 09:47, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >>>Andre, we have a number of people running this patch in the > > >>>following configurations: > > >>> > > >>>6-8GB ram + 10gigE ethernet using iozone over NFS. > > >> > > >>As you haven't seen any problems yet I've asked RE to green light > > >>the MFC. > > > > > >RE has rejected the MFC out of fears for unexpected regressions. > > > > > > > That is unfortunate. I guess re@ doesn't understand that FreeBSD > > 9.2 will be unusable out of the box for doing 10gigE for more than a > > few microseconds. > > > > Can we not just do my original patch that has the check for 64bit > > pointers before unscaling maxusers? That would be dirt simple and > > just work with minimal risk. > > > > IMHO, this is considered a new feature, and not a critical bug fix. re@ > asked from the start of the code slush to avoid new features, and at > this point, it is too late. It is not worth introducing possible > regressions, which will only delay the 9.2-RELEASE. > Its kinda sad that it wount be MFC'd though I understand, it does help 10Gbe environments Id give it a vote, and its perceived to have possible regressions, though it might need more testing other then a handful of users..... we can always patch........ until its MFCd > > Glen > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
