On Nov 10, 2003, at 1:39 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jonathan Mini wrote: > > All in all I don't think it is worth adding this complexity. I agree. >> This is actually a small value for TCP connections which are being >> used to forward messages, especially on gigabit links. >> Heavily-intensive >> web applications that are using small HTTP requests (pipelined inside >> a >> persistent connection) to update small manipulations of state are >> a good example of this. I wouldn't be surprised to see chatter >> between SQL servers follow similar patterns. Applications which >> use XML-based messaging often send several small packets per message, >> which is unfortunate. > > Do you think such applications manage to send 1000 packets per second > with less than 256 bytes payload per packet? I think the network code > would collect some data to form a larger packet (unless TCP_NODELAY > set)? Traffic like that only happens when TCP_NODELAY is set. Otherwise, you get what you would expect. >> On the other hand, I'm used to looking at proxies, which are not >> the general case. This is why the limits are tunable, after all. =) > > Is there way you could monitor such connections and compile some > statistics how many small packets per second are sent? I could adjust > the patch to just report the fact instead of dropping the connection. > Could do it for 4.9-R too, it's fairly easy. Alas, no. This is from anecdotal experience from our support staff at work. -- Jonathan Mini mini_at_freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.orgReceived on Mon Nov 10 2003 - 01:41:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:28 UTC