Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:30:50 +0900
From:      gnn@freebsd.org
To:        Chris Pratt <eagletree@hughes.net>
Cc:        Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: zonelimit issues...
Message-ID:  <m2hcdt87ed.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2373438-DA8B-4B6D-8E5E-D52520C4AEC7@hughes.net>
References:  <m2hcdztsx2.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <48087C98.8060600@delphij.net> <382258DB-13B8-4108-B8F4-157F247A7E4B@hughes.net> <20080420103258.D67663@fledge.watson.org> <33AC96BF-B9AC-4303-9597-80BC341B7309@hughes.net> <m2prsj4pqx.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <F2373438-DA8B-4B6D-8E5E-D52520C4AEC7@hughes.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:35:38 -0700,
Chris Pratt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:43 AM, gnn@freebsd.org wrote:
> 
> > ...snip
> >
> > Well there are plenty of us motivated to get at these issues.  Can you
> > do me a favor and characterize your traffic a bit?  Is it mostly TCP,
> 
> The traffic that seems to take us out is TCP port 80. I'll make a
> generalized guess but it does seem to follow. We freeze on one of
> two dramatically heavy use days for our industry (Sunday and Monday
> evening). The hang will actually occur on Monday or Tuesday
> following these days if sufficient traffic hits us. It has not
> always followed this pattern but most frequently. There is always a
> high presence of high frequency attacks of various sorts. For
> example referer spam posts which hit us hard on our busy
> evenings. So it is TCP and I would presume we usually have the
> establishment of many useless sessions that could cause us to bump
> up against limits and cause exhaustion coupled with our real traffic
> peaks.
> 

Interesting, but with TCP it should be easier to tune this, in
particular because TCP has backoff once a packet drops.  I gather you
are using facilities, like accept filters, that make it easy to drop
less useful traffic?

> This thread has given me several things to try and I'm adjusting (e.g.,
> nmbclusters) upward to see what happens.

Sounds good.  Using netstat -m and netstat -an are a good way to watch
this issue.  -m is the number of mbufs/clusters in use and -an will
show you all sockets, but what you want to check on s the number of
bytes in the recv and send socket buffers, which are the 2nd and 3rd
columns.

> I should also mention that this system has the natural limitations
> on it's traffic ceiling of two T1s on two NICs and a 3rd LAN NIC
> fielding continuous round-robin mysql replication and rsync style
> mirroring.  It uses two bge interfaces and one server type em
> interface.  It's always troubled me that the zonelimit issues have
> always been associated with higher volume circuits (in what I've
> read). But since our issue is very directly related to traffic
> levels and seem to occur at times where my monitors show us way over
> committed on the two outward facing T1s, I'm still going to proceed
> with the adjustments and see if it increases our survivability.

Since zonelimit is a state reached when your system is out of
resources it makes sense that the higher the traffic the sooner you'll
reach it.  

> Thanks for your time on this.
> 

No problem, it's what I like to do :-)

Best,
George



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2hcdt87ed.wl%gnn>