From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Dec 8 13:26:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.dbitech.bc.ca (i.caniserv.com [139.142.95.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8010215227 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:26:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from darcy@ok-connect.com) Received: (qmail 12268 invoked from network); 8 Dec 1999 21:26:10 -0000 Received: from ccliii.caniserv.com (HELO dbitech) (darcyb@139.142.95.253) by 139.142.95.10 with SMTP; 8 Dec 1999 21:26:10 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19991208132705.009969d0@mail.ok-connect.com> X-Sender: darcyb@mail.ok-connect.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:27:05 -0800 To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: Darcy Buskermolen Subject: Re: Route table leaks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'll add in my 2ct's worth about a similar router I've admind. bash-2.01$ uname -r 2.2.6-RELEASE bash-2.01$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K routetbl 394 46K 239K 18528K 4649348 0 0 16,32,64,128,256 bash-2.01$ netstat -nr | wc -l 123 bash-2.01$ uptime 1:16PM up 276 days, 4:53, 2 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 bash-2.01$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l 24 At 09:26 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: >At 1:26 PM -0600 1999/12/8, Joe Greco wrote: > >>> vmstat -m | grep routetbl|grep K >> routetbl289178 40961K 40961K 40960K 435741 0 0 >>16,32,64,128,256 >>> netstat -rn | wc -l >> 16 > > I had never looked at this on my machines (main news peering >server in the Top 100, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX >interface with a default route, running 3.2-RELEASE): > >$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K > routetbl 246 34K 36K 40960K 920 0 0 16,32,64,128,256 >$ netstat -nr | wc -l > 13 >$ uptime > 9:07PM up 7 days, 8:06, 1 user, load averages: 2.87, 3.14, 3.15 >$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l > 379 > >> 289178 blocks (and 40960K - that's 40MB) in use to support 16 routes (that >> is 2.5MB of memory used per listed route) is a bit on the excessive side. > > This machine hasn't been up very long, is running an application >profile that I assume is somewhat similar to yours (although I'm sure >yours is much more heavily tuned, as well as loaded), but 2,835.692 >bytes per route (26K/13) still seems a bit excessive. > > I've got another machine (an internal mailing list server, very >very lightly loaded, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX >interface with a default route, running 3.0-RELEASE) that looks much >more reasonable: > >$ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K > routetbl 32 4K 8K 10400K 13212 0 0 16,32,64,128,256 >$ netstat -nr | wc -l > 11 >$ uptime > 9:25PM up 135 days, 11:04, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 >$ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l > 30 > > However, even 744.727 bytes per route (8K/11) seems a little >higher than what I would expect, although this is *much* better than >almost 3KB/route, and especially better than 2,621,504.000 >bytes/route (40MB/16). The 312.402 bytes/route (20.731MB/69585) that >Mike reported seems much more realistic. > >> I'd think that inbound connections are less likely to be an issue than >> outbound ones, as inbound connections get really heavily exercised on >> things like web servers. But that is off-the-top-of-my-head speculation, >> and I've nothing to support that theory. > > Unfortunately, I don't have any FreeBSD web servers here that I >can test that theory with. I'm trying to get more FreeBSD production >servers installed here, but progress has been rather slow -- I can >only roll them in as old servers need to be replaced, and as FreeBSD >supports the hardware & software I need to use in order to support >the application. > >-- > These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy > ____________________________________________________________________ >|o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| >|o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| >|o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| >|o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. > Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message