From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 05:55:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E2B37B401 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa-plum1b-166.pit.adelphia.net (pa-plum1a-215.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.170.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A06043FB1 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:55:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from potentialtech.com (working [172.16.0.95]) h3PCtk0n002061; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:55:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Message-ID: <3EA93052.2010409@potentialtech.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:55:46 -0400 From: Bill Moran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030301 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsdQ0@richardshea.fastmail.fm References: <3EA9A69B.16198.16C5739@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3EA9A69B.16198.16C5739@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upping MBUFS even though netstat -m says PEAK is low ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:55:48 -0000 Richard Shea wrote: > Hi - I often get the message "Missed packet -- no receive buffer" > appearing on the console. I have read around and some people advise > fixing this by changing the value of MBUFS. > > Before I do that I wanted to check something out. When I do netstat - > m at > the time I'm getting these messages on the screen I see ... > > 10/48/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > 8 mbufs allocated to data > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 2/28/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 68 Kbytes allocated to network (2% of mb_map in use) > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > ... now does the fact that the peak value of mbufs is only 48 means > that > changing MBUFS max is hardly likely to do away with this problem ? > > BTW strange aspect of this - I'm pretty sure the only time this error > occurs is when a W2000 box is running backup and writing the backup > file > to a Samba share on the FBSD box. In truth the FBSD box does not > normally > get intensively used across the network for any other reason and so > this > may not be significant but I thought I would mention it ... Doesn't look like mbufs are the limiting factor. Perhaps try increasing net.inet.tcp.recvspace -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com