Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:32:39 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eirik_=D8verby?= <ltning@anduin.net> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Subject: Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? Message-ID: <BD8AC9F6-DF96-41F9-8E92-48A4E5606DC7@anduin.net> In-Reply-To: <20100227193819.GA60576@icarus.home.lan> References: <20100226141754.86ae5a3f.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <E1Nl1mb-0002Mx-M9@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <E1Nl2JK-00033U-Fw@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <20100226174021.8feadad9.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <E1Nl6VA-000557-D9@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <20100226224320.8c4259bf.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B884757.9040001@digiware.nl> <20100227080220.ac6a2e4d.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B892918.4080701@digiware.nl> <20100227202105.f31cbef7.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <20100227193819.GA60576@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27. feb. 2010, at 20.38, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Gerrit K=FChn wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen = <wjw@digiware.nl> >> wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: >>=20 >> WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use >> WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of = packet >> WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) >>=20 >> WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. >> WJW>=20 >> WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) >> WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use >> WJW> (current/cache) >>=20 >> After about 24h I now have >>=20 >> 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) >> 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use = (current/cache) >=20 > Follow-up regarding my server statistics shown here: >=20 > = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-February/055458.htm= l >=20 > I just pulled the statistics on the same servers for comparison (then > vs. now). >=20 > RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/09 -- primary HTTP, pri DNS, SSH server + ZFS >=20 > 515/1930/2445 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 512/540/1052/25600 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) > 1152K/6394K/7547K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >=20 > RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/11 -- secondary DNS, MySQL, dev box + ZFS >=20 > 514/1151/1665 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 512/504/1016/25600 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) > 1152K/2203K/3356K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >=20 > RELENG_7 i386 2008/04/19 -- secondary HTTP, SSH server, heavy memory = I/O >=20 > 515/820/1335 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 513/631/1144/25600 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) > 1154K/2615K/3769K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >=20 > RELENG_8 amd64 2010/02/02 -- central backups + NFS+ZFS-based filer >=20 > 1572/3423/4995 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 1539/3089/4628/25600 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) > 3471K/7449K/10920K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >=20 > So, not much difference. >=20 > I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do = its > backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is = intense > network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much data = there > is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only used to = provide > a way for people to get access to their nightly backups in a = convenient > way; it isn't used very heavily. >=20 > I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people > want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the = NFS > mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let = me > know if anyone's interested in me testing that. I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily = reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via = NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP = instead of UDP makes the problem go away. Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, = does not cause the problem to show up. A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.ht= ml /Eirik > --=20 > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BD8AC9F6-DF96-41F9-8E92-48A4E5606DC7>