From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 30 09:25:24 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2067E16A4D0; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:25:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from juniper.fornext.org (53.35.138.210.xn.2iij.net [210.138.35.53])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B339743D3F; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:25:11 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from shino@fornext.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ariel.net.ss.titech.ac.jp [131.112.21.25])
	by juniper.fornext.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591CF2A;
	Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:10 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:24:57 +0900
From: Shunsuke SHINOMIYA <shino@fornext.org>
To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <200409292038.23349.max@love2party.net>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040924135726.82478I-100000@fledge.watson.org>
	<200409292038.23349.max@love2party.net>
Message-Id: <20040930175812.F7FE.SHINO@fornext.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.11.02 [ja]
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re[2]: High rate traffic silence an em interface.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:25:24 -0000


> This might be my fault! Just committed a fix from Mike Makonnen, that might 
> solve the problem you are seeing. 

 Yes, the problem is solved. Thank you!!!

 BTW, I noticed that netstat -m shows odd informations after that
 netrate test at BETA5. It seems that memory leak or unnecessary freeing
 occur.
> # netstat -m
> 4294950224 mbufs in use
> 10436/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/max)
> 0/3/6656 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max)
> 16604 KBytes allocated to network
> 0 requests for sfbufs denied
> 0 requests for sfbufs delayed
> 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile
> 0 calls to protocol drain routines

 But, a combination of BETA5 kernel and sys/dev/em/* of -current does
 not have this problem.

-- 
Shunsuke SHINOMIYA <shino@fornext.org>