Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:17:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> To: "Kuriyama, Kent K Mr (CPF N651KK)" <KuriyaKK@cpf.navy.mil> Cc: behanna@zbzoom.net, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010121716260.19319-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <A567A7C3889FD2119D2600204840388C03E9EAE3@uemspricpf3.cpf.navy.mil>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Kuriyama, Kent K Mr (CPF N651KK) wrote: > Chris, > > Your email prompted me to look at mbuf utilization on a 4.1.1-STABLE box > that is currently not in production. > > outside# netstat -m > 130/160/7168 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > 129 mbufs allocated to data > 1 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 128/136/1792 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 312 Kbytes allocated to network (92% in use) > ^^^^^^^^^^ > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > outside# uptime > 4:32AM up 1 day, 14:01, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > > I don't know whether to be concerned about the 92% utilization since the > number of bytes allocated seems low. The machine has never crashed but then > it has never served as a server. > > Is this kind of mbuf utilization expected? Yes. This is just reporting how much of presently allocated pages are in use. It's really not my favorite statistic either, but I guess that in some situations, it can be fairly useful. > Kent Kuriyama > SPAWAR Sys Ctr San Diego D424, CINCPACFLT N671KK > kuriyakk@cpf.navy.mil, 808-471-4125 [...] Later, Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010121716260.19319-100000>