From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 4 02:16:37 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EC916A400; Fri, 4 May 2007 02:16:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC5013C455; Fri, 4 May 2007 02:16:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9FE48A32D; Thu, 3 May 2007 23:16:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00115-01; Thu, 3 May 2007 23:16:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-89-241-126.eastlink.ca [24.89.241.126]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703AC48A325; Thu, 3 May 2007 23:16:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975A260476; Thu, 3 May 2007 23:16:44 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:16:44 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Matthew Dillon Message-ID: <8B91F8463484DAC35543C340@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <200705040126.l441QUZh078197@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200705040126.l441QUZh078197@apollo.backplane.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Robert Watson , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Socket leak (Was: Re: What triggers "No Buffer Space) Available"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:16:37 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, May 03, 2007 18:26:30 -0700 Matthew Dillon 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-----