Re: [PATCH] dont increase the size of socket buffers in low memory situations

2016-07-06 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:44:17PM +0200, Simon Mages wrote: > Thats true, i found also another bug in this diff, the new one follows. OK bluhm@ > Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c,v >

Re: [PATCH] dont increase the size of socket buffers in low memory situations

2016-07-05 Thread Simon Mages
2016-07-05 15:36 GMT+02:00, Claudio Jeker : > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 07:22:27AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: >> Makes sense to me. Others? >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages >> wrote: >> > At the moment the buffersize will be set

Re: [PATCH] dont increase the size of socket buffers in low memory situations

2016-07-05 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 07:22:27AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: > Makes sense to me. Others? > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages > wrote: > > At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the > > current value > > is smaller. > > > > The

Re: [PATCH] dont increase the size of socket buffers in low memory situations

2016-07-05 Thread Bob Beck
Makes sense to me. Others? On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages wrote: > At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the > current value > is smaller. > > The following diff fixes this problem. > > Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c >

[PATCH] dont increase the size of socket buffers in low memory situations

2016-07-05 Thread Simon Mages
At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the current value is smaller. The following diff fixes this problem. Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c,v retrieving revision

socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Stuart Henderson
Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? # sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=262145 # telnet naiad 80 Trying 2a01:348:108:108:a00:20ff:feda:88b6... Trying 195.95.187.35... # I was thinking of looking into it, but before going down

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? You might have to patch sb_max for that. Joerg

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? There is this magical define in uipc_socket2.c called SB_MAX that limits the socket buffers to 256k going over that line

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you can kill the boxes easily. You don't need 35MB per client connection if interfaces like sendfile(2) are used. All the kernel has to guarantee in that case is

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2010/07/03 18:17, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you can kill the boxes easily. some would also say that 16K is insane ;-) You don't need 35MB per client

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Rod Whitworth
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:46:22 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: there is some pretty serious hardware behind it... http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/indexabout.html Those guys have some serious uses for that equipment in addition to being a great source of ftp mirrors. They are ready (or very close) to