From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:10:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:10:25 -0400 Received: from peace.netnation.com ([204.174.223.2]:54802 "EHLO peace.netnation.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:10:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:10:33 -0700 From: Simon Kirby To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Subject: Re: Really slow netstat and /proc/net/tcp in 2.4 Message-ID: <20011012151033.B12311@netnation.com> In-Reply-To: <20011011114736.A13722@netnation.com> <200110111930.XAA28404@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20011011125538.C10868@netnation.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from andi@firstfloor.org on Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 09:56:01PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 09:56:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > The hash table is likely to big anyways; eating cache and not helping that > much. If you're interested in some testing > I can send you patches to change it by hand and collect statistics for > average hash queue length. Then you can figure out a good size for your > workload with some work. Longer time I think the table sizing heuristics > are far too aggressive and need to be throttled back; but that needs more > data from real servers. Wouldn't just counting the lines in /proc/net/tcp be sufficient to see how many buckets should be used in an ideal hash table distribution scenario? (In which case the size of the hash table depends largely on a machine's work load...) Most of our web servers seem to have 500-1000 entries in /proc/net/tcp. Simon- [ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ] [ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ] [ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]