>>>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:15 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> said:
Andi> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:58:00 -0800
Andi> David Mosberger <davidm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Also, it appears that current SuSE kernels do indeed have a
>> net.core.somaxconn sysctl to let a sysadmin choose a larger SOMAXCONN
Andi> Yes I did that patch some time ago for some server who needed
Andi> it. If there is interest I can submit it for 2.6. But I'm not
Andi> sure it fits the "important bug fixes only" rule.
Yes, I think the patch should be (re-)submitted. It certainly fixes a
performance bug. At the moment, in-kernel servers are at an unfair
advantage over user-space servers for this reason.
In my opinion, SOMAXCONN should also be bumped, but that's less
critical if there is a sysctl to override the default value (plus I
only have a hand-wavy argument as to what SOMAXCONN should be...).
Another argument _for_ including the patch in 2.6.0 is so that we
don't have to add a user-visible change in the middle of 2.6 (e.g.,
simplifies documentation etc). Plus the patch is trivial.
Andi> Another alternative would be to make it a fraction of the
Andi> listen() argument per socket
Andi> (e.g. min(tcp_max_syn_backlog,min(128,10%*listenarg))) to
Andi> allow the application to easily change it.
I don't understand what purpose this would serve. Seems to me it
would make life only more complicated for apps that know what they're