From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mr Dash Four Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ipset 6.6 released Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4DDBA31B.4040406@googlemail.com> References: <4DDB91CD.3080003@googlemail.com> <4DDB9C6A.9040308@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:41215 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750992Ab1EXMWz (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 08:22:55 -0400 Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so7259351wwa.1 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:22:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Currently I can suggest you that tune both the hashsize and maxelem > parameters: the hashsize tells the system the initial hash size (and thus > the used memory resource) while maxelem tells up to what number of > elements can be added to the set. You are free to enter quite high maxelem > values, it does not waste memory. As you add more and more elements, the > hash size is increased from the one specified by 'hashsize'. But you (or > the SET targets) can't add more elements than "maxelem". > > When you save a set, the current hashsize is saved and not the one > specified at set creation time. > Ah, I see! So maxelem does not have an impact on system resources as hashsize has, is that right? If that is the case, then I may as well leave the default (64k) as I'd never exceed this value. Thanks for your input, as always!