Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 06:48:14 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Charles Owens <owensc@enc.edu> Cc: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MBUFs leaking? Message-ID: <199605061348.GAA06775@Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 May 1996 09:38:01 EDT." <Pine.FBS.3.93.960506091022.1525C-100000@dingo.enc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>On Mon, 6 May 1996, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > >> On Sun, 5 May 1996, David Greenman wrote: >> > >to obey the options NMBCLUSTERS and only allocates about 180k to >> > >mbufs. I've played with maxusers, NMBCLUSTERS, and others and no effect. >> > >> > I can't explain this. There must be something interacting with this, like a >> > user process limit or something. There haven't been any kernel changes that >> > would affect this. >> > >I am seeing the same behavior as well! I also have NMBCLUSTERS set to >4096 but according to 'netstat -m', only 156k is allocated to mbufs!! I >was wondering if I was interpretting it correctly. Any theories? > >Here's the netstat output: > >36 mbufs in use: > 11 mbufs allocated to data > 9 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 12 mbufs allocated to protocol control blocks > 4 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses >8/76 mbuf clusters in use >156 Kbytes allocated to network (13% in use) I didn't mention this before, but the space for the buffers is only allocated when it is needed. NMBCLUSTERS only sets the _maximum_ amount. In my comments above, I was assuming that the machines were doing the same thing in both cases. If you don't see an error on the console about running out of mb_map space, then I don't think you have a problem. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605061348.GAA06775>