From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]>
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.
N§²ζμrΈyϊθΨb²X¬ΆΗ§vΨ^)ήΊ{.nΗ+·§zΧ^Ύ)ν
ζθw* jg¬±¨ Άέ’j/κδzΉήΰ2ή¨θΪ&’)ί‘«aΆΪώψ �G«ιh�ζj:+v¨wθΩ₯
