Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:45:00 +0500 From: rihad <rihad@mail.ru> To: Oleg Bulyzhin <oleg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet dropping too many packets Message-ID: <4ADCA59C.3090601@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <20091009082743.GB70940@lath.rinet.ru> References: <20091007085902.GA88982@lath.rinet.ru> <4ACC5E23.8090405@mail.ru> <20091007100503.GB88982@lath.rinet.ru> <4ACC6A7B.5050808@mail.ru> <20091007104525.GC88982@lath.rinet.ru> <4ACC7308.6070301@mail.ru> <4ACCC30E.7080504@elischer.org> <4ACCC4F3.3030302@mail.ru> <20091008060608.GA23793@lath.rinet.ru> <4ACE10CF.2030806@elischer.org> <20091009082743.GB70940@lath.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oleg Bulyzhin wrote: > One more idea to check: > > What happens if you rearrange your rules to shape 'in' packets? > i.e. use 'in recv bce0' instead of 'out recv bce0 xmit bce1'. Wow, shape incoming packets? That's a good one - the packets could still buffer up waiting to be output. I'm not sure this will eliminate burstiness (if it IS the problem), but I'll no doubt try this if current changes don't prove to be helpful. Currently we've been running running a "ifq_drv_maxlen = 4096;" kernel with HZ=4000 for a few hours, 0 drops so far with around 2700 entries in each of the two IPFW tables (no big surprise so far, we had this with maxlen=1024 too with under 3000 entries).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ADCA59C.3090601>