Re: Limiting closed port RST response from XXX to 200...

ray_at_redshift.com
Date: 10/18/05

  • Next message: Marco Molteni: "diskless: meaning of conf/base ?" 
    Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:26:18 -0700
To: "Mike Silbersack" <silby@silby.com>

    At 09:48 PM 10/17/2005 -0400, Mike Silbersack wrote:
    | > Hi,
    | >
    | > On a server I'm benchmark testing, via local host, I'm getting Limiting
    | > closed
    | > port RST response from XXXX to 200 packets/sec on the console when I'm
    | > running a
    | > lot of local connections very quickly all at once (about 7500 per second).
    | > I've
    | > added the following:
    | >
    | > net.inet.tcp.log_in_vain: 0
    | > net.inet.udp.log_in_vain: 0
    | >
    | > but still does it. Is there any way to disable it short of installing
    | > ipf? I'd
    | > like to see what the theoretical limit of the machine is without it
    | > perhaps
    | > limiting connections in some manner.
    | >
    | > Thanks!
    | >
    | > Ray
    |
    | Er, if you're seeing those messages, your benchmark is going very awry!
    |
    | The kernel is telling you that 7500 junk packets per second are coming in,
    | but that it has chosen to send RST packets in response to only 200 of
    | them. What you should be asking is - why are 7500 junk packets per second
    | coming into the system? This could be due to a flaw in how your benchmark
    | is setup (if you're trying to connect to a port that has no listening
    | service or DNS lookups to a nonexistent DNS server?), or it could be some
    | kernel bug you've uncovered. If it's the latter, then I would be very
    | interested in helping you get it fixed.
    |
    | There is a sysctl for disabling the reset rate limiting, but I would
    | suggest that you track down the source of the problem before resorting to
    | disabling the feature.
    |
    | Mike "Silby" Silbersack
    |
    |

    Hi Mike,

      Thanks for the pointers. I will check some of those areas you mention. Since
    I just threw this machine together real fast, I may have some DNS off the mark
    or something.

      BTW, the benchmark I'm using is 'ab' in apache/bin. I'm running it with -c 50
    and -n 1000. Seems to only cause the RST thing on small files.

      Thanks again for the tips.

    Ray

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Marco Molteni: "diskless: meaning of conf/base ?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Fortran decimal anyone?
      ... >> Mike, ... >> perhaps you can supply missing info in below scorecard? ... > But that's missing the point of the benchmark The benchmark ... PLUS statements to invoke rounding required. ...
      (comp.lang.fortran)
    • Re: TelCo "programming challenge" (update)
      ... Mike Cowlishaw wrote: ... >>that needs more inputs from fav language adherents.. ... > But that's missing the point of the benchmark The benchmark ... hardware on their Video Card to exploit the "standard" benchmark test, ...
      (comp.lang.cobol)
    • Re: Limiting closed port RST response from XXX to 200...
      ... > On a server I'm benchmark testing, via local host, I'm getting Limiting ... > port RST response from ... The kernel is telling you that 7500 junk packets per second are coming in, ...
      (freebsd-hackers)
    • Re: Which method would be faster?
      ... [MIKE D] ... any benchmark or other test is going to be affected by ... the "power" of the PC, as well as other factors (network connection, et ...
      (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
    • Re: Brian, about your T-Max...
      ... "Hi Mike, ... It sounds like it's going into premature current limiting. ... I guess he likes the hard distortion he gets from his T-Max after a couple ...
      (alt.guitar.bass)