Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:16:44 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Socket leak (Was: Re: What triggers "No Buffer Space) Available"? Message-ID: <8B91F8463484DAC35543C340@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <200705040126.l441QUZh078197@apollo.backplane.com> References: <D2A2BB0F2857DF90BFC07305@ganymede.hub.org> <200705040126.l441QUZh078197@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, May 03, 2007 18:26:30 -0700 Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: > One thing you can do is drop into single user mode... kill all the > processes on the system, and see if the sockets are recovered. That > will give you a good idea as to whether it is a real leak or whether > some process is directly or indirectly (by not draining a unix domain > socket on which other sockets are being transfered) holding onto the > socket. *groan* why couldn't this be happening on a server that I have better remote access to? :( But, based on your explanation(s) above ... if I kill off all of the jail(s) on the machine, so that there are minimal processes running, shouldn't I see a significant drop in the number of sockets in use as well? or is there something special about single user mode vs just killing off all 'extra processes'? - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGOpeM4QvfyHIvDvMRAoppAJ9SNmIi+i2vDXEZzrpaVe74a3uKyQCfeMY7 z3lFWXEo111CL5peXvqqsCQ= =qxmO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8B91F8463484DAC35543C340>