Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:39:32 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> To: snap-users@kame.net Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (KAME-snap 8792) Re: Weird memory exhaustion with FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409242032040.17234-100000@netcore.fi> In-Reply-To: <y7vfz57k5qw.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote: > Apparently the most significant change is the memory consumption > regarding routing table: > > In "wrk" > Memory statistics by bucket size > Size In Use Free Requests HighWater Couldfree > 64 2196 44 5165 320 0 > Memory statistics by type Type Kern > Type InUse MemUse HighUse Limit Requests Limit Limit Size(s) > routetbl 461 67K 67K 10148K 538 0 0 16,32,64,128,256,512 > > In "brk" > Memory statistics by bucket size > Size In Use Free Requests HighWater Couldfree > 64 37865 2583 5315047 320 1075 > Memory statistics by type Type Kern > Type InUse MemUse HighUse Limit Requests Limit Limit Size(s) > routetbl 64959 10148K 10148K 10148K 2445306 0 0 16,32,64,128,256,512 OK.. > Some random thoughts, which may or may not help, at the moment: > > 1. do you see massive number of entries with "netstat -rna"? Yes. # netstat -nra | wc -l 32468 # A couple of examples: 2002:41a:1e23::41a:1e23 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 2002:41a:1eaa::41a:1eaa 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 2002:41a:6b0e::41a:6b0e 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 2002:41a:6f4b::41a:6f4b 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 2002:41a:70f5::41a:70f5 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 1433 2002:41a:7411::41a:7411 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 2002:41a:8e81::41a:8e81 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 That's basically about all the 2002:xxx addresses which have been relayed through. I'd suspect the number is maxed and garbage-collected around 2^15 though, because the box is relaying w/ much many more addresses than that. I guess this provides a hint at a very probable source of leakage. > 2. if you specify the "link2" flag on the stf interface, what if you > do not specify it? (if such operation is acceptable in your > environment) The flag is not specified. > 3. if you can replace the kernel with KAME snap versions, do you see > any difference in the memory consumption? This would be a bit difficult, so I'd like to avoid it if possible. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0409242032040.17234-100000>