Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:22:07 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Scott" <jmscott@ainet.com> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbufs, allocated memory and the like Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.9812301617100.9275-100000@www.ainet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981230143416.12457A-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Bill Fumerola wrote: > > I feel so silly posting to -questions, but... > > bash-2.02$ netstat -m > 209/256 mbufs in use: > 209 mbufs allocated to data > 208/212/8192 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 456 Kbytes allocated to network (96% in use) I believe that the 96% in use refers to the number of mbufs actually allocated, 209. It will then allocate more as they are needed up until it hits the max, 8192 in this case. I really like the output of netstat -m on 3.0 much better than on 2.2.x, since it displays the max mbuf's also. > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > Is the 96% in use something I should be worrying about? What kernel > options should I set higher. If my assumption above is correct ( by all means some one straighten me out quickly if I'm not ) then it's not a problem and nothing to worry about since you are not even close to your max. > > maxusers is 128 > NMBCLUSTERS is 8192 (obviously, from the data above) Somewhere I recall that the calculation for NMBCLUSTERS uses the maxusers setting. So you may actually be lowering your mbuf's by specifically setting it. I don't recall exactly what the calculation is, it's in the source somewhere :-) > > Thanks, > * Joseph M. Scott * jmscott@ainet.com * American InfoMetrics * Modesto, CA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSU.4.05.9812301617100.9275-100000>