From owner-freebsd-net Fri May 8 06:03:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17157 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:03:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk [128.16.5.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA17145 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from P.Gevros@cs.ucl.ac.uk) Received: from mickey.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:12:06 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 To: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) cc: Chris Fanning , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MBUFs and IPFW revisited In-reply-to: Your message of "08 May 1998 12:53:56 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 13:12:05 +0100 Message-ID: <29428.894629525@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Panos GEVROS Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org i 'll take the chance here, i've captured instances of netstat -m which reported 99% (even 100%) in use and occasionally the machine crashed (and then i couldnt tell of course) and i was suspecting that "running out of mbufs" could well be the reason. At least that's what i liked to think since we are talking about "sligthly" modified TCP code with several connections opened simultaneoulsy with large cwnds (around 17K each if i remember well). Am i right in assuming : - "100% in use" will cause a crash ? - the way to increase memory allocated to network is options "NMBCLUSTERS=XXXX" ? Cheers, Panos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message