Re: mbuf tuning
From: Mike Silbersack (silby_at_silby.com)
Date: 01/20/04
- Previous message: Ted Cabeen: "Re: Old SUN NFS performance papers."
- Maybe in reply to: Mike Silbersack: "Re: mbuf tuning"
- Next in thread: Maxim Konovalov: "Re: mbuf tuning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:56:09 -0600 (CST) To: CHOI Junho <cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org>
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote:
> I am using custom version of thttpd. It allocates mmap() first(builtin
> method of thttpd), and it try to use sendfile() if mmap() fails(out of
> mmap memory). It really works good in normal status but the problem is
> that sendfile buffer is also easy to flood. I need more sendfile
> buffers but I don't know how to increase sendfile buffers either(I
> think it's hidden sysctl but it was more difficult to tune than
> nmbclusters). With higher traffic, thttpd sometimes stuck at "sfbufa"
> status when I run top(I guess it's "sendfile buffer allocation"
> status).
>
> 5.2 is fair good quality in my desktop but I have no experience in
> production environment. I'll consider it once 5.x enters -STABLE tree,
> but not now.
>
> Apache2 is one of my targets. How much better than apache-1.3.x in
> static file service?
thttpd using sendfile will certainly run circles around apache2, apache2
is still pre-fork. Under 4.x, you're going to have to tune the sfbufs by
trial and error, but doing so will be worth it.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Ted Cabeen: "Re: Old SUN NFS performance papers."
- Maybe in reply to: Mike Silbersack: "Re: mbuf tuning"
- Next in thread: Maxim Konovalov: "Re: mbuf tuning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
