> On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:06 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:28:16 -0700 > >> Certainly, that should be done and I will look into it, but the >> essence of this patch is a bit different. The problem here is not >> the size of the fdb entries, it’s more the number of them - having >> 96000 entries (even if they were 1 byte ones) is just way too much >> especially when the fdb hash size is small and static. We could work >> on making it dynamic though, but still these type of local entries >> per vlan per port can easily be avoided with this option. > > 96000 bits can be stored in 12k. Get where I'm going with this? > > Look at the problem sideways. Oh okay, I misunderstood your previous comment. I’ll look into that. Thanks, Nik
