From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Jacob Subject: Re: even hash tables sizes, FAQ entry Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:41:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20070720074134.GB17809@internet24.de> References: <469FE2DC.90300@relevad.com> <469FE85B.3010502@relevad.com> <20070719225931.GA17114@internet24.de> <469FF100.5020509@relevad.com> <20070719232836.GA17202@internet24.de> <469FF52F.5010301@relevad.com> <20070719234741.GB17253@internet24.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CdrF4e02JqNVZeln" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 05:13:11PM -0700, David Lang wrote: [..] > >Is this still true? What is the reason for this? And: Does > >any odd hashtable size work as well as other odd hash tables sizes > >in the same order of magnitude? >=20 > changing conntrack_max is not chaning the hash bucket count, that change= =20 > can only be done in the code or as a module parameter at module load time. Sure, I meant odd hash bucket counts of course, so is this FAQ still accurate? --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGoGcugF9cFv867HwRAvV3AKDFrBG029U1LbMm1m05ya5YcGF5cQCgpAC9 PVm18X0h2cvtTf5b01nI1JU= =IXsY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln--