Andre Oppermann wrote: > John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > mbufs are 256 bytes. Thats what I had thought :-) > >> Hmmm.. If we switched clusters to 1536 bytes in size, we'd be able to >> fit 8 in 12k (though I guess for 8k page boxes we'd do 16 in 24k)... The >> only issue w/ that would be that a few of the clusters would possibly >> split page boundaries... How much this would effect performance would >> be an interesting question to answer... > > > Splitting page boundaries is not an option as it may not be physically > contigous. That can be rather hazardous :-) > > Just don't overengineer the stuff. Mbufs are only used temporarily and > a bit theoretical waste is not much a problem (so far at least). > Yes, but I think a combination of less copying and a bit better use of space could help overall.. but I guess as they say the "proof is in the pudding" so I will have to play a bit.. R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 20:07:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC