From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 21:11:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F2637B401 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.libero.it (smtp0.libero.it [193.70.192.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A603B43FBF for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:11:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ml.ventu@flashnet.it) Received: from soth.ventu (151.38.127.191) by smtp0.libero.it (7.0.019) id 3F1D5F8400213312 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 06:11:11 +0200 Received: from mailer (xanatar.ventu [10.1.2.6]) by soth.ventu (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with SMTP id h6U4B9F3002743 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 06:11:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml.ventu@flashnet.it) Message-Id: <200307300411.h6U4B9F3002743@soth.ventu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer for OS/2 (Green Edition Ver 3.0) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 06:11:09 EST From: Andrea Venturoli X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 Subject: Re: Crash with bpf X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andrea Venturoli List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:11:13 -0000 ** Reply to note from Lowell Gilbert 29 Jul 2003 16:16:01 -0400 > > I understand, but upgrading this machine has a cost and I must be > > absolutely sure this will not introduce new problems as previous > > upgrades did. > > I understand, but my time has a cost as well. No doubt about that. As I said in my first message, I *AM* willing to take an upgrade, I'd only like to have a bit more insight. In case this depends on other things, maybe it's a well-known problem, an error of mine, a misconfiguration, maybe about mbufs as you suggested, I don't think the upgrade would matter and/or help. > > >I don't have enough time to go into this in depth, but see if the > > >problem is affected by increasing the number of mbufs. > > > > Nice suggestion, how do I do that? > > Nice sarcasm; the obvious response is that you could read the manual. I had read the handbook, but found this not so clear. I also tried "man 9 mbuf", as suggested in netstat's man page, but this doesn't seem to be available on my system (why?). I was also a bit scared, since it is said to possibly lead to boot time crashes and I don't easily have physical access to the machine (which would then keep crashing and crashing, since the problem would be in the startup configuration files). I did instead produce another crash and measured mbufs usage: several seconds before the crash (I don't think it was more than a minute and a half) "netstat -m" gave: 207/496/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): 203 mbufs allocated to data 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers 2 mbufs allocated to fragment reassembly queue headers 198/248/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) 620 Kbytes allocated to network (20% of mb_map in use) 0 requests for memory denied 0 requests for memory delayed 0 calls to protocol drain routines So I would guess I'm not short on these. Does this answer your suggestion or should I try anyway? If so, I'll try and do this next time I happen to be physically there (and possibly upgrade too). bye & Thanks av.