From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 27 20:55:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19140 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:55:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles237.castles.com [208.214.165.237]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19096 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:55:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA00348; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:54:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199810280454.UAA00348@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: dg@root.com cc: Mike Smith , Steven Yang , "'Open Systems Networking'" , "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: FW: Can't get rid of my mbufs. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:55:36 PST." <199810280255.SAA06432@implode.root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:54:01 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >> Thanks for the info. One question remains. Suppose netstat -m tells me > >> that 7900/8050 mbuf clusters are in use. Now suppose I stop all of the > >> important processes and let the machine stay idle for 2 hours. Why does > >> netstat -m still tell me that 7900/8050 mbuf clusters are in use? > >> Basically, I'd wish it would say something like 99/8050 mbuf clusters in > >> use instead. I already have MAXUSERS set to 512. > > > >You have an mbuf leak somewhere, where mbufs are being allocated to > >contain data but never being freed. > > We need more info before it can be detemined that there is a "leak". The > machine is trying to do more than 8 million connections/day, and there are > special considerations when trying to do that. 10000 mbuf clusters almost > certainly will not be enough. He may not be able to configure enough, in > fact, without changing the kernel VM layout. If the machine is left idle for 2 hours, and presumably from this we would expect that all open connections were closed, there is nothing that I can think of that could account for nearly eight thousand mbufs allocated for data other than a pile in the bottom of the bit bucket. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message