We'll have to see how it plays out performance wise, but we're doing some tracking on a per IP per port basis across a /24. We'd originally tried to use one map with a key that's a combination of IP and port, but had to switch to map in map with IP being outer key and port being inner (or could go vice versa). --Zvi On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:00:27AM -0800, Zvi Effron wrote: >> Would it make sense to increase that limit for 64-bit systems? All of >> the comments on why that limit exists that I saw mentioned that >> userspace wouldn't be able to access all of the elements if it were >> bigger. But on a 64-bit system, shouldn't userspace be able to access >> more than 4GB? > > What is the _real_ use case for more than 4Gbyte maps? > > So far I've seen only one such case that had use to map-in-map > as a workaround to grow the total map size to ~20Gbyte, > but it eventually it was scaled down because at such sizes > performance was bad. >
|