Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 03:39:56 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= aka "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" <ache@astral.msk.su> To: davidg@Root.COM, John Capo <jc@irbs.com> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com>, Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> Subject: Re: mb_map full with GATEWAY and maxusers 64! Message-ID: <xTCLqxlOS9@astral.msk.su> In-Reply-To: <199506262226.PAA17617@corbin.Root.COM>; from David Greenman at Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:25:58 -0700 References: <199506262226.PAA17617@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199506262226.PAA17617@corbin.Root.COM> David Greenman
writes:
>>I agree with Tom here. But, it seems to me that there is an
>>underlying problem of some sort. Why do I have to allow for 4Megs
>>of mbuf clusters to service some unknown transient event. Once
>>this memory is in the mbuf map, its there forever.
> Well, the usage is a function of the number of TCP connections. If you do a
>"netstat" and find a whole pile of connections (even ones in a closing state),
>then this explains it. This can easily happen to people using HTTP.
I wonder why it happens on my host, as I already said, user activity
was very low, and I am not running HTTP/anon FTP/IRCD/NFSD or other
network-consume daemons, just plain routed+named.
--
Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead -
FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3 : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xTCLqxlOS9>