Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:40:38 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Matt Reimer <mattjreimer@gmail.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should syncache.count ever be negative? Message-ID: <20071110033704.D46803@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <f383264b0711100113w2ef66739se59775819c9a34d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <f383264b0711091609n81875b6v444055960ab0fd96@mail.gmail.com> <20071109213846.O46803@odysseus.silby.com> <f383264b0711092323p5148300fu3c0883135f8fb01b@mail.gmail.com> <20071110020333.I46803@odysseus.silby.com> <f383264b0711100113w2ef66739se59775819c9a34d3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Matt Reimer wrote: > I ran "netstat -Lan" every second while running this test and the > output never changed from the following, whether before or after the > stall: I forgot to mention, check netstat -s for listen queue overflows. > During the stall the sockets are all in TIME_WAIT. More relevant info: In the past that was not a problem, but I should retest this as well. > It still stalls. This time I noticed that tcptw shows 0 free: The tcptw zone is supposed to fill completely, then kick out the oldest entry whenever a new one comes in. So, that sounds ok to me... but like I said, I need to retest that too. > When I use ab I'm telling it to use a max of 100 simultaneous > connections (ab -c 100 -n 50000 http://66.230.193.105/). Wouldn't that > be well under the limit? Yep, should be. Hmph. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071110033704.D46803>