From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 17 09:24:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03ABF106566B for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:24:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31998FC1D for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69C5F46B17; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:24:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: rihad In-Reply-To: <4AD96422.1040008@mail.ru> Message-ID: References: <4AD6D99E.10805@mail.ru> <4AD95493.40200@mail.ru> <4AD96422.1040008@mail.ru> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet dropping too many packets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:24:10 -0000 On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, rihad wrote: >> Just rebooted with the "ifp->if_snd.ifq_drv_maxlen = 1024;" kernel, all ok >> so far. There's currenlty only 1000 or so entries in the ipfw table and >> around 350-400 net mbps load, so I'll wait a few hours for the numbers to >> grow to >2000 and 460-480 respectively and see if the drops still occur. > > The change definitely helped! There are now more than 3200 users online, > 460-500 mbps net traffic load, and normally 10-60 (up to 150 once or twice) > consistent drops per second as opposed to several hundred up to 1000-1500 > packets dropped per second before the rebuild. What's interesting is that > the drops now began only after the ipfw table had around 3000 entries, not > 2000 like before, so the change definitely helped. Just how high can maxlen > be? Should I try 2048? 4096? Sure, those should both be safe to use in your configuration, although as the numbers get higher, potential kernel memory use increases, as does the risk of starvation for clusters. Keep an eye on "netstat -m" errors to see if you are reaching configured resouce limits (which you've probably increased already). Robert