Re: (KAME-snap 8792) Re: Weird memory exhaustion with FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE

From: Pekka Savola (pekkas_at_netcore.fi)
Date: 09/24/04

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: locking & iovecs" 
    Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:39:32 +0300 (EEST)
To: snap-users@kame.net

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
    > Apparently the most significant change is the memory consumption
    > regarding routing table:
    >
    > In "wrk"
    > Memory statistics by bucket size
    > Size In Use Free Requests HighWater Couldfree
    > 64 2196 44 5165 320 0
    > Memory statistics by type Type Kern
    > Type InUse MemUse HighUse Limit Requests Limit Limit Size(s)
    > routetbl 461 67K 67K 10148K 538 0 0 16,32,64,128,256,512
    >
    > In "brk"
    > Memory statistics by bucket size
    > Size In Use Free Requests HighWater Couldfree
    > 64 37865 2583 5315047 320 1075
    > Memory statistics by type Type Kern
    > Type InUse MemUse HighUse Limit Requests Limit Limit Size(s)
    > routetbl 64959 10148K 10148K 10148K 2445306 0 0 16,32,64,128,256,512

    OK..

    > Some random thoughts, which may or may not help, at the moment:
    >
    > 1. do you see massive number of entries with "netstat -rna"?

    Yes.

    # netstat -nra | wc -l
       32468
    #

    A couple of examples:

    2002:41a:1e23::41a:1e23 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0
    2002:41a:1eaa::41a:1eaa 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0
    2002:41a:6b0e::41a:6b0e 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0
    2002:41a:6f4b::41a:6f4b 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0
    2002:41a:70f5::41a:70f5 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0 1433
    2002:41a:7411::41a:7411 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0
    2002:41a:8e81::41a:8e81 2002:c058:6301::1741 UHW3 stf0

    That's basically about all the 2002:xxx addresses which have been
    relayed through. I'd suspect the number is maxed and
    garbage-collected around 2^15 though, because the box is relaying w/
    much many more addresses than that.

    I guess this provides a hint at a very probable source of leakage.

    > 2. if you specify the "link2" flag on the stf interface, what if you
    > do not specify it? (if such operation is acceptable in your
    > environment)

    The flag is not specified.

    > 3. if you can replace the kernel with KAME snap versions, do you see
    > any difference in the memory consumption?

    This would be a bit difficult, so I'd like to avoid it if possible. 

    -- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: locking & iovecs"