From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Feb 25 13:24:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA17499 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:24:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [204.178.32.161]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17492 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:24:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (spork@localhost) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA08255; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:32:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Petri Helenius cc: Doug White , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: socket buffers In-Reply-To: <199702251530.RAA02889@silver.sms.fi> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On a slightly unrelated note, I have a 2.1.7 machine running erpcd for 4 Xylogics Remote Annexes. After installing their latest software (R3.1/R11.2) I see that now it is using TCP rather than UDP, which is fine with me, I guess, but ever since that, a netstat -m shows 66% of mbufs used, which seems rather high. Right now that is the only thing this box is doing, but later this week, it will be a mail hub, primary DNS, a POP server, and doing some light NFS exports. I fear that that number reported in netstat -m will go high enough to cause trouble... What is the recommended way of increasing mbufs, and what is a good starting point? Are there any other variables that should change as well? Thanks, Charles On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Petri Helenius wrote: > Doug White writes: > > > > Run 'netstat -m' to get the memory info and post that. > > > > You may need to increase your mbufs. > > > As a helpful gentleman already instructed me of the setsockopt call > which is neccessary to increase the allocated buffer size and I > figured out the neccessary sysctl to increase myself (to up the max > allowed). I did run out of mbufs in the process though :-) And the > system paniced. > > Pete >