From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 14 11:55:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E307106566B for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd@lordcow.org) Received: from lordcow.org (lordcow.org [41.203.5.188]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68ECA8FC17 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lordcow.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lordcow.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8EBshrV063190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:54:43 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from lordcow@lordcow.org) Received: (from lordcow@localhost) by lordcow.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o8EBscGC063189; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:54:38 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from lordcow) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:54:38 +0200 From: Gareth de Vaux To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-ID: <20100914115438.GA61728@lordcow.org> References: <20100909153902.GA28341@lordcow.org> <20100909162009.GA80375@icarus.home.lan> <20100910114908.GA55978@lordcow.org> <20100914103657.GA57521@lordcow.org> <20100914110302.GA84971@icarus.home.lan> <20100914111200.GA59889@lordcow.org> <20100914113053.GA19053@icarus.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100914113053.GA19053@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on lordcow.org Cc: stable@freebsd.org, luigi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw: Too many dynamic rules X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:55:17 -0000 On Tue 2010-09-14 (04:30), Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > Regarding net.inet.tcp.finwait2_timeout=15000 -- you don't see any > improvement at all? That's a bit strange. There's probably something If there was an improvement it was subtle (I was doing sporadic measurements), just that in the end my firewall was getting overloaded either way. > FWIW, I'd recommend keeping an appended log of output from something > like this script: will do