[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE8A3C3.1070003@candelatech.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:04:19 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iproute uses too small of a receive buffer
On 10/28/2009 12:50 PM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> And, even 1MB may not be enough for some scenarios. So, probably best to
>> let users over-ride the initial setting on cmd-line. If not, then use
>> a large value to start with.
>
> How about this? It uses 1MB as receive buf limit by default (without
> increasing /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max it will be limited by less
> however) and allows to specify the size manually using "-rcvbuf X"
> (-r is already used, so you need to specify at least -rc).
>
> Additionally rtnl_listen() continues on ENOBUFS after printing the
> error message.
Looks good..except:
If rmem_max is smaller than 1M, will that cause setsocktopt to
fail and thus fail early out of rtnl_open_byproto?
Maybe we should only print errors but not return in that method
when setsockopt fails?
In another project, I ended up trying ever smaller values until one
worked in order to get near what the user wanted even if rmem_max
was configured smaller. Not sure if that is worth doing here or not.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists