Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:26:05 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, mike@sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) Cc: jdp@polstra.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route table leaks Message-ID: <v04220817b4746acf61d3@[195.238.21.204]> In-Reply-To: <199912081926.NAA80612@aurora.sol.net> References: <199912081926.NAA80612@aurora.sol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:26 PM -0600 1999/12/8, Joe Greco wrote:
>> vmstat -m | grep routetbl|grep K
> routetbl289178 40961K 40961K 40960K 435741 0 0
>16,32,64,128,256
>> netstat -rn | wc -l
> 16
I had never looked at this on my machines (main news peering
server in the Top 100, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX
interface with a default route, running 3.2-RELEASE):
$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K
routetbl 246 34K 36K 40960K 920 0 0 16,32,64,128,256
$ netstat -nr | wc -l
13
$ uptime
9:07PM up 7 days, 8:06, 1 user, load averages: 2.87, 3.14, 3.15
$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l
379
> 289178 blocks (and 40960K - that's 40MB) in use to support 16 routes (that
> is 2.5MB of memory used per listed route) is a bit on the excessive side.
This machine hasn't been up very long, is running an application
profile that I assume is somewhat similar to yours (although I'm sure
yours is much more heavily tuned, as well as loaded), but 2,835.692
bytes per route (26K/13) still seems a bit excessive.
I've got another machine (an internal mailing list server, very
very lightly loaded, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX
interface with a default route, running 3.0-RELEASE) that looks much
more reasonable:
$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K
routetbl 32 4K 8K 10400K 13212 0 0 16,32,64,128,256
$ netstat -nr | wc -l
11
$ uptime
9:25PM up 135 days, 11:04, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l
30
However, even 744.727 bytes per route (8K/11) seems a little
higher than what I would expect, although this is *much* better than
almost 3KB/route, and especially better than 2,621,504.000
bytes/route (40MB/16). The 312.402 bytes/route (20.731MB/69585) that
Mike reported seems much more realistic.
> I'd think that inbound connections are less likely to be an issue than
> outbound ones, as inbound connections get really heavily exercised on
> things like web servers. But that is off-the-top-of-my-head speculation,
> and I've nothing to support that theory.
Unfortunately, I don't have any FreeBSD web servers here that I
can test that theory with. I'm trying to get more FreeBSD production
servers installed here, but progress has been rather slow -- I can
only roll them in as old servers need to be replaced, and as FreeBSD
supports the hardware & software I need to use in order to support
the application.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
____________________________________________________________________
|o| Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be> Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o|
|o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o|
|o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o|
|o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o|
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04220817b4746acf61d3>