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
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 1.3m
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 ticke
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
Jedi/Sector One wrote:
Hi Cedric.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:08:13AM +0100, Cedric Berger wrote:
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.
What is the highest safe value I should raise NMB
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
mi
