From owner-freebsd-current Mon May 6 07:51:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA17715 for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 1996 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sasami.jurai.net (root@sasami.jurai.net [205.218.122.51]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA17692 Mon, 6 May 1996 07:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (winter@localhost) by sasami.jurai.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA16417; Mon, 6 May 1996 09:52:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 09:52:02 -0500 (CDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" X-Sender: winter@sasami To: michael butler cc: Charles Owens , davidg@Root.COM, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MBUFs leaking? In-Reply-To: <199605061440.AAA16598@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 May 1996, michael butler wrote: > I always thought that whilst there is a definable upper bound on how many > clusters might be created, the memory actually used for data was dynamically > allocated (and freed), Indeed. This seems to be the case. I'm not sure why I was getting 'unable to allocate' errors on the console, but I'm not getting them anymore and as a test, I added about um... 1500 IP aliases just to see what would happen (nothing really). The mbuf clusters increased and I got no errors, so all is working correctly. I was a little worried when I saw the % used approaching 100 and jumped to conclusions about low mbufs and the allocation errors I got. LART me, and have a good one. | Matthew N. Dodd | winter@jurai.net | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | | Technical Manager | mdodd@intersurf.net | http://www.intersurf.net | | InterSurf Online | "Welcome to the net Sir, would you like a handbasket?"|