Joao, I can tell you for sure that FreeBSD 5.4 stable on x86 is the only FreeBSD system that IMHO behaves well. I cannot comment about the Sparc version you're using.
Cheers, Luca Joao Barros wrote: >Luca, > >ntop was tested on both machines with little traffic, on the ultra5 >for example with a ssh connection and the traffic from ntop's webpage >only (plus some dns and dhcp). Just by using the webpage I could force >the libpcap thread to quit. The low cpu speed of this machine is only >relevant to enhance the wicked behavior of ntop on FreeBSD. > >Regarding FreeBSD's threading, it would be very interesting in getting >some of the core developers eyes on this issue. > >Joao Barros > >On 5/6/05, Luca Deri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joao, > why is the CPU a problem for you? Because you have little traffic to > analyze or because you expect a lighter CPU usage? How did you configure > ntop and where (topology, network speed etc)? Bearn in mind that ntop > has been designed (default) to monitor a LAN so if you have a WAN or a > large network you better configure properly. > > FreeBSD is definitively not the best OS in terms of threading (although > many other things work nicely and probably better than other similar > OSs). I have no experience on Sun+BSD, so I cannot really provide you a > more precise answer to your problem. > > Cheers, Luca > > Joao Barros wrote: > > >Hi all, 1st post :) > > >I installed ntop from ports on my Sun Ultra5 400MHz running FreeBSD > >5.4RC3 and noticed the cpu would go to 100% and stay there (98% ntop > >process and load average 1.0). > >I could see traffic being analised throught the webpage but poking > >around the page would caus e this to happen: ntop[86069]: > >THREADMGMT: pcapDispatch thread terminated... > >and of course, no more captured packets which ntop would report > >correctly on the number of discarded packets by libpcap. > >I already read about this in the mailing list archives but tried to > >reproduce it on my laptop, a P4m 2.0GHz running FreeBSD 5.4RC4. > >Since this cpu is somewhat faster I couldn't get the pcapDispatch > >thread to terminate, but still got some packets discarded by libpcap > >and yet 100% cpu usage, but this time still with load average at > >almost 1.0 but the ntop process low although I see it's pushing for > >the kernel. > >top after about 5mins after starting ntop: > > >last pid: 61804; load averages: 0.95, 0.54, 0.60 > > up 0+03:27:52 06:40:50 > >30 processes: 2 running, 28 sleeping > >CPU states: 12.0% user, 0.0% nice, 80.2% system, 7.8% interrupt, > 0.0% idle > >Mem: 47M Active, 111M Inact, 40M Wired, 68K Cache, 34M Buf, 40M Free > >Swap: 400M Total, 400M Free > > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND > >61801 nobody 123 0 47304K 33040K RUN 2:36 39.07% 39.06% ntop > > >Notice the 80% used by system. > > >I tried ntop 3.1 from ports on both systems and 3.1.1 from cvs today > >on the laptop, both with the same results. > > >quoting Burton: > >"However, I'm not all that comfortable changing the basic daemonizing > logic > >w/o a lot of testing - that's why we held off - it was too close to 3.0's > >release on that change. > > >Maybe it is time to try this - but only if we can get people to commit to > >trying the cvs. The results from the last few requests for help > testing has > >been resounding silence." > > >I'm willing to test anything you through at me, so please do :) > > >My thanks in advance, > > >Joao Barros > >_______________________________________________ > >Ntop mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop > -- Luca Deri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://luca.ntop.org/ Hacker: someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it - Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Ntop mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
