Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:25:47 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> To: rick norman <rick.norman@lmco.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dummynet stats Message-ID: <20011026112547.B67858@iguana.aciri.org> In-Reply-To: <3BD99BE8.F02EA873@lmco.com> References: <3BD99BE8.F02EA873@lmco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 10:22:48AM -0700, rick norman wrote: > Hi, > > I seem to get inconsistent outputs from the same dummynet > stat query. Following is the output from two different queries : > > bash-2.05$ > bash-2.05$ ipfw pipe 3 show > 00003: unlimited 0 ms 2048 B 0 queues (1 buckets) droptail > mask: 0x00 0x00000000/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 > bash-2.05$ > bash-2.05$ ipfw pipe 3 show > 00003: unlimited 0 ms 2048 B 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail > mask: 0x00 0x00000000/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 > BKT Prot ___Source IP/port____ ____Dest. IP/port____ Tot_pkt/bytes > Pkt/Byte Drp > 0 icmp 127.0.31.1/0 127.0.31.1/0 3139 1695060 0 > 0 0 > bash-2.05$ > > The only difference between the two dumps is that a flood ping > was stopped and then restated. > In both cases, the same ruleset and dummynet pipes were in effect. I > am using flood pings for a data stream in both cases. The first dump > is after a flush and reinstallation of the pipe rules. The data stream > was > running while the rules were being installed. The ping was then stopped > > and restarted followed by the second stat query. My question is why > didn't > the stats reflect the stream until it had been stopped and restarted ? i actually doubt that any traffic went throught he pipe before the first "ipfw pipe show" or you would have seen it. packets are accounted for immediately as they go through. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011026112547.B67858>