Re: hash table size

To:	Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Roberto Nibali <ratz@xxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: hash table size
Cc:	Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From:	Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:59:27 -0400

Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
>         Hello,
> 

>         I'm not sure what the kernel will decide in this situation but
> don't rely on the fact some processes will not be killed :) There is
> a constant network activity and a need for memory for
> packets (floods/bursts).

what about returning to a hash table with fixed upper size?

Joe
-- 
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
hash table size [Was Re: lvs not workimg :(, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size [Was Re: lvs not workimg :(, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Roberto Nibali Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Roberto Nibali Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack <= Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Joseph Mack Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov Re: hash table size, Roberto Nibali Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov why director default gw in VS-NAT?, Joseph Mack

Previous by Date:	Re: LVS-NAT: configure emergency http server on director, Julian Anastasov
Next by Date:	Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov
Previous by Thread:	Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov
Next by Thread:	Re: hash table size, Julian Anastasov
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]