Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 ; site lvbull.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!lvbull!sylvain From: sylvain@lvbull.UUCP (Sylvain Langlois RCG-ARS) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Help: socket buffer size Message-ID: <433@lvbull.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 15:35:35 EDT Article-I.D.: lvbull.433 Posted: Mon Jul 15 15:35:35 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:09:16 EDT References: <400@cheviot.uucp> Organization: BULL, Louveciennes, France Lines: 25 I don't think increasing socket buffer size is really necessary. I don't think there is a socket buffer size either !!. I've been looking at networking code of 4.2 BSD quite in detail ( I won't talk about AF_UNIX): and what is done about buffer size is only an initialization of so_hiwat at the beginning of new TCP connection. While implementing ISO Transport in 4.2BSD kernel, I increase this "size" by reserving something like 8K bytes for both queues. What I fear is that , if ever traffic is going to grow too much, all your mbufs pool is going to be eaten by socket buffers and some of your process are going to die because of ENOBUFS (except if your memory is big enough). I'm running with 30K bytes of mbufs and that even seems short to handle crisis situation ( like 4 users doing a transfer of /unix to their neighbours , some others playing with remote talk, well a fairly heavily loaded machine somehow!) Maybe another better idea would be increasing the data area of a mbuf? Any idea? -- Sylvain "Panic Trap" Langlois UUCP Address: (...!mcvax!vmucnam!lvbull!sylvain) Postal Address: BULL, PC 33/05, 68 route de Versailles, F-78430 Louveciennes, France.