Hi,
I have a firewall that is starting to get a little overworked. I
currently have this line in my kernel config:
options NMBCLUSTERS=4096
and I am starting to hit that limit:
276/4096/4096 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max)
So, the obvious response is to increase that NMBCLUSTERS
At 02:36 PM 12.14.2002 -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
Hi,
I have a firewall that is starting to get a little overworked. I
currently have this line in my kernel config:
options NMBCLUSTERS=4096
and I am starting to hit that limit:
276/4096/4096 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max)
So, the
How much physical memory do you have on the system that you upped to 8192
?
I am trying to find out if there is some correlation between physical
memory and what is safe to set NMBCLUSTERS to ... or is NMBCLUSTERS such a
small part of physical memory that even if you set it to 128,000 you still
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:36:39PM -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
1. any comments on raising NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 ? any other values that
need to be tuned to support that ?
2. what is the max I could safely raise NMBCLUSTERS to ?
Increasing NMBCLUSTERS will increase the use of kernel memory.
Ok, understood - that answers my question and the one I just posted.
So ... in 4.4 KVA space was, by default ... I forget ? So I guess my
question has now morphed into:
- if the machine is doing nothing but firewalling (so there are no other
demands on KVM/KVA) how high can you set NMBCLUSTERS
At 02:36 PM 12.14.2002 -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
Hi,
I have a firewall that is starting to get a little overworked. I
currently have this line in my kernel config:
options NMBCLUSTERS=4096
and I am starting to hit that limit:
276/4096/4096 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max)
So, the
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:24:09PM -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
Ok, understood - that answers my question and the one I just posted.
So ... in 4.4 KVA space was, by default ... I forget ? So I guess my
question has now morphed into:
- if the machine is doing nothing but firewalling (so
