On 2026/10/07 08:23, Paul de Weerd wrote: > That makes a lot of sense. However, kern.maxclusters on my machine is > 262144 whereas I had 266504 mbufs in use. Am I misunderstanding > things?
This is mbufs vs mbuf clusters > Informational, but the operator has a hard time figuring this out. > `ifconfig` doesn't show it, there it's "UP" or not, and then it has > status "no carrier" or "active" or something. But I was surprised to > learn of this other link state that's not reflected in ifconfig > output. If it helps, the "status: active" (or down or whatever) is somewhat similar to "line protocol is up" on cisco etc. > | in my mind it's reasonable for a driver to queue packets when the link > | is down, the hardware should just complete tx processing with errors. > | aq hardware seems to be waiting for the link to appear to run the > | ring and make progress though. > > I understand your point, but seems to me that there should be a limit > to the number of packets to queue. At this point in time I see: this kind-of makes sense as a failsafe (better to wedge an interface than the whole system), though if the interface comes up later you then have some super old packets to send. and where do you draw the line..
