Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:27:05 -0800 From: Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@ok-connect.com> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route table leaks Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991208132705.009969d0@mail.ok-connect.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'll add in my 2ct's worth about a similar router I've admind.
bash-2.01$ uname -r
2.2.6-RELEASE
bash-2.01$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K
routetbl 394 46K 239K 18528K 4649348 0 0
16,32,64,128,256
bash-2.01$ netstat -nr | wc -l
123
bash-2.01$ uptime
1:16PM up 276 days, 4:53, 2 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
bash-2.01$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l
24
At 09:26 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
>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
>
>
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?3.0.32.19991208132705.009969d0>