From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 6 12:57:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01842 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:57:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA01804 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA09067; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:57:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd009029; Tue Oct 6 12:57:20 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA18722; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:57:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199810061957.MAA18722@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: -current panics.. To: dg@root.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:57:15 +0000 (GMT) Cc: enkhyl@hayseed.net, mishania@demos.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199810052332.QAA16333@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Oct 5, 98 04:32:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >This same kind of situation can occur with a network-intensive app running > >under Solaris, too. From my own experience with tuning OSs (specifically > >Solaris 2.x), I'd agree with David's assessment. Not having delved that > >far into the details of FreeBSD "leaks" as he probably has, I can't say > >with certainty that there are none, but I'm inclined to believe him. :-) > > I should say here that I'm not saying that there aren't any "leak" bugs, > either, just that I have looked into this several time and found nothing but > mis-tuned systems. I'm also a bit incredulous since wcarchive does far more > TCP/IP than most other machines in the world, has months of uptime and no > detectable buffer leaks. I want to be clear about this: If there was a bug > that I could identify, I'd fix it immediately. "Show me the mon^H^H^Hbug!" I kind of have a question in this area... If it's possible to tune the system's static resource allocations, then why not make the allocations dynamic so that they are self tuning, and dampen the hysteresis loop so that you don't get wild swings? It's always seemed odd to me that there would ever be an "out of mbufs!" message when there was, in fact, room available to allocate more mbufs... I know, I know; too AIX-like for most people... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message