From owner-freebsd-current Wed Dec 8 12:29:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dozer.skynet.be (dozer.skynet.be [195.238.2.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B80814BDC; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:27:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@foxbert.skynet.be) Received: from foxbert.skynet.be (foxbert.skynet.be [195.238.1.45]) by dozer.skynet.be (8.9.3/odie-relay-v1.0) with ESMTP id VAA22995; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:27:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from root@localhost) by foxbert.skynet.be (8.9.1/jovi-pop-2.1) id VAA01416; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:27:02 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@foxbert.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199912081926.NAA80612@aurora.sol.net> References: <199912081926.NAA80612@aurora.sol.net> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:26:05 +0100 To: Joe Greco , mike@sentex.net (Mike Tancsa) From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Route table leaks Cc: jdp@polstra.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 1:26 PM -0600 1999/12/8, Joe Greco wrote: >> vmstat -m | grep routetbl|grep K > routetbl289178 40961K 40961K 40960K 435741 0 0 >16,32,64,128,256 >> netstat -rn | wc -l > 16 I had never looked at this on my machines (main news peering server in the Top 100, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX interface with a default route, running 3.2-RELEASE): $ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K routetbl 246 34K 36K 40960K 920 0 0 16,32,64,128,256 $ netstat -nr | wc -l 13 $ uptime 9:07PM up 7 days, 8:06, 1 user, load averages: 2.87, 3.14, 3.15 $ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l 379 > 289178 blocks (and 40960K - that's 40MB) in use to support 16 routes (that > is 2.5MB of memory used per listed route) is a bit on the excessive side. This machine hasn't been up very long, is running an application profile that I assume is somewhat similar to yours (although I'm sure yours is much more heavily tuned, as well as loaded), but 2,835.692 bytes per route (26K/13) still seems a bit excessive. I've got another machine (an internal mailing list server, very very lightly loaded, one Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100+ 100-Base-TX interface with a default route, running 3.0-RELEASE) that looks much more reasonable: $ vmstat -m | grep routetbl | grep K routetbl 32 4K 8K 10400K 13212 0 0 16,32,64,128,256 $ netstat -nr | wc -l 11 $ uptime 9:25PM up 135 days, 11:04, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 $ ps axl | grep ':' | wc -l 30 However, even 744.727 bytes per route (8K/11) seems a little higher than what I would expect, although this is *much* better than almost 3KB/route, and especially better than 2,621,504.000 bytes/route (40MB/16). The 312.402 bytes/route (20.731MB/69585) that Mike reported seems much more realistic. > I'd think that inbound connections are less likely to be an issue than > outbound ones, as inbound connections get really heavily exercised on > things like web servers. But that is off-the-top-of-my-head speculation, > and I've nothing to support that theory. Unfortunately, I don't have any FreeBSD web servers here that I can test that theory with. I'm trying to get more FreeBSD production servers installed here, but progress has been rather slow -- I can only roll them in as old servers need to be replaced, and as FreeBSD supports the hardware & software I need to use in order to support the application. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ____________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message