netdev - Re: [PATCH] IPVS: Allow boot time change of hash size.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:24:45 +1100
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Mark Bergsma <mark@...imedia.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Catalin(ux) M. BOIE" <catab@...edromix.ro>,
	Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@...d.net>,
	Graeme Fowler <graeme@...emef.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPVS: Allow boot time change of hash size.

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:57:22PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 07:49:38PM +0100, Mark Bergsma wrote:
> >> On 03-12-08 01:37, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: "Catalin(ux) M. BOIE" <catab@...edromix.ro>
> >>> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:16:04 -0700 (MST)
> >>>> I was looking for anything that could get me past of 88.000 request per
> >>>> seconds.
> >>>> The help text told me to raise that value if I have big number of
> >>>> connections. I just needed an easy way to test.
> >>> You're just repeating what I said, you "think" it should be
> >>> changed and as a result you are wasting everyones time.
> >>>
> >>> You don't actually "know", you're just guessing using random
> >>> snippets from documentation rather than good hard evidence of
> >>> a need.
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I just found this year-old thread about a patch allowing the IPVS
> >> connection hash table size to be set at load time by a module parameter.
> >> Apparently the conclusion reached was that allowing this configuration
> >> setting to be changed would be useless, and that the poster's
> >> performance problems would likely lie elsewhere, since he had no
> >> evidence it was caused by the hash table size.
> > 
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > thanks for your test results. I have added them to the patch.
> > Feel free to edit the text.
> 
> Just wondering because of this comment - do you want me to apply this
> patch?

I was fishing for an response from Mark.
I'll resubmit it properly as that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html