From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Jan 1 00:19:38 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F884D698A for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 00:19:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D6Qd53bgpz4d24 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 00:19:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1010JTP8062427 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Jan 2021 00:19:32 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: vit@otcnet.ru Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1010JNsR088242 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Jan 2021 07:19:23 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: 'dropped due to full socket buffers' by SNMP To: Victor Gamov , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <388da9a7-7b89-89b2-54eb-17d0e818c924@otcnet.ru> <4e41c1d2-19bc-0345-0b03-526e4cb785c7@otcnet.ru> <6c780827-e764-8053-356b-a921e0892c15@grosbein.net> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <7e51a6be-aea1-51c6-c0bd-10d00c19d5d3@grosbein.net> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 07:19:18 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains * -3.4 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4D6Qd53bgpz4d24 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 15.00]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[eugen]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2:from]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(1.00)[1.000]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2:from:127.0.2.255]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-net] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 00:19:38 -0000 30.12.2020 23:08, Victor Gamov wrote: > As I understand hw.ix.flow_control=3 to allow flow-control for negotiation. > Real PAUSE setting will be set during negotiation. At the moment of congestion. > So where I can find active flow-control setting for host interface? Can't check for ix just now, but for em(4) there is sysctl dev.em.0.fc. It should be similar for ix. >> maybe increase kern.ipc.maxsockbuf and then net.inet.udp.recvspace. > Eugene, at first message you suppose Host-A (sender) "outgoing link for that UDP packets is congested" > because this host shows non-zero "dropped due to full socket buffers". > So is net.inet.udp.recvspace increasing on Host-B (mainly receiver) will be affected for this congestion? Can't tell in details without going deep into your setup :-) You can try it yourself and verify quickly. > Or I need to try to increase both kern.ipc.maxsockbuf and net.inet.udp.recvspace on both hosts? Tune one that drops UDP. > Also how I can check current sockbuf usage? netstat -xn