Hi,
after i updated from 6.0 to 6.1, i saw that kern.maxclusters was raised
and removed our local change to kern.maxclusters.
Although the value is now way higher, the output shows a lower number
than before:
before the upgrade:
~ # sysctl kern.maxclusters
kern.maxclusters=24578
~ # netstat -m
Dear list,
Karlis and I experienced the hangup problem and discussed it last month
on the bugs ML ( all the thread at
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugsm=137321082217664w=2 ).
Claudio had the kindness to point out that having no available clusters
(i.e. a kern.maxclusters setting set too low
: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 09:58:27 shiva2 /bsd: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 10:00:27 shiva2 last message repeated 2 times
netstat -m shows this now:
-bash-3.1$ netstat -m
199 mbufs in use:
195 mbufs allocated
of the outage in the log:
May 23 09:57:27 shiva2 /bsd: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 09:58:27 shiva2 /bsd: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 10:00:27 shiva2 last message repeated 2 times
netstat -m shows this now:
-bash-3.1
of the outage in the log:
May 23 09:57:27 shiva2 /bsd: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 09:58:27 shiva2 /bsd: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
May 23 10:00:27 shiva2 last message repeated 2 times
netstat -m shows this now
Great!
04.10.2012 16:52 ÐÏÌØÚÏ×ÁÔÅÌØ Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
* Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net [2012-10-02 18:31]:
which links to: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/filter.html#synproxy
which gets far from saying what Henning said.
this has been fixed.
--
Henning
* Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net [2012-10-02 18:31]:
which links to: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/filter.html#synproxy
which gets far from saying what Henning said.
this has been fixed.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
* Илья Шипицин chipits...@gmail.com [2012-08-23 08:44]:
2012/8/23 Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600, ??? wrote:
why syn proxy is not enabled by default ?
Because it has bad side-effects. Like accepting a connection before the
actual
but is this clear for newbies who read all the faqs?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:17:03PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* ?? chipits...@gmail.com [2012-08-23 08:44]:
2012/8/23 Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600, ???
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:50:36PM +1000, David Diggles wrote:
but is this clear for newbies who read all the faqs?
Well, it's not default. And almost often that is a sign the option is
not desirable for a typical setup.OB
-0tto
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:17:03PM +0200, Henning
* David Diggles da...@elven.com.au [2012-10-02 13:51]:
but is this clear for newbies who read all the faqs?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:17:03PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
it once again comes down to think before pushing random buttons.
this basic principle SHOULD not need documentation :)
I think when a lot of newbies read the pf manual, they think oh...
synproxy looks like it does good things, and without really
understanding it, enable it by default?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* David Diggles da...@elven.com.au [2012-10-02 13:51]:
but is
I would vote no based on:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html
For an added bit of safety, we'll make use of the TCP SYN Proxy to
further protect the web server.
which links to: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/filter.html#synproxy
which gets far from saying what Henning said.
On
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:30, Tyler Morgan wrote:
I would vote no based on:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html
For an added bit of safety, we'll make use of the TCP SYN Proxy to
further protect the web server.
which links to: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/filter.html#synproxy
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:54:18PM -0400, Michel Blais wrote:
How much can I increase net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen ?
I'm now at 2048 and still seeing increase in net.inet.ip.ifq.drops.
This morning, it was at 21280 and now at 21328.
A little bit of congestion increase is not the end of the world,
How much can I increase net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen ?
I'm now at 2048 and still seeing increase in net.inet.ip.ifq.drops. This
morning, it was at 21280 and now at 21328.
I've change the système for a temporary more powerfull one (core 2 quad
+ 2 dual 82571EB) while I'm commanding and building new
2012/8/23 Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600, ??? wrote:
Hello!
we are running high load https server on OpenBSD, so there are questions
on
performance:
since we already had to increase kern.maxclusters value, I guess default
Hello!
we are running high load https server on OpenBSD, so there are questions on
performance:
since we already had to increase kern.maxclusters value, I guess default
OpenBSD settings are not very well for high load https server ?
in order to protect our server from denial of service, we can
Can you describe 'high load' ?
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600, Илья Шипицин wrote:
; Hello!
;
;
; we are running high load https server on OpenBSD, so there are questions on
; performance:
;
; since we already had to increase kern.maxclusters value, I guess default
; OpenBSD
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600, ??? wrote:
Hello!
we are running high load https server on OpenBSD, so there are questions on
performance:
since we already had to increase kern.maxclusters value, I guess default
OpenBSD settings are not very well for high load https
On 2012-08-14, Michel Blais mic...@targointernet.com wrote:
I maybe found something, congestion seem high when I check with pftcl -si.
I don't think it's hardware related since CPU is under 50% use.
I saw this tread where Henning suggest to raise net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen
so I raided it to 512
Hi misc,
I got a little error here with a sysctl value in dmesg :
WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters
The value was at 6144 and I just change it to 9216 (50% more)
The system is also having paquet lost from 1 up to 6% and can have
latency up to 30 ms and changing
(0e0e83aa73b049f0.a) swap on sd1b dump on sd1b
WARNING: / was not properly unmounted
Le 2012-08-14 11:31, Michel Blais a écrit :
Hi misc,
I got a little error here with a sysctl value in dmesg :
WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters
The value was at 6144 and I just change
unmounted
Le 2012-08-14 11:31, Michel Blais a écrit :
Hi misc,
I got a little error here with a sysctl value in dmesg :
WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters
The value was at 6144 and I just change it to 9216 (50% more)
The system is also having paquet lost from 1 up to 6
Hi all,
As the subject says, I've found a few lines like that in /var/log/messages:
[...]
/bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters
[...]
The box is a 4.6 -STABLE with PF doing FW functions (moving 300/400Mbps)
and always has worked like a charm.
I've noticed when
with around 800 users,
what
would be a reasonable value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure
this
:
r...@proxy-s ~ grep mcl /var/log/messages
Dec 10 10:13:43 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
Dec 10 11:06:07 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached
wrote:
Hi,
A proxy (squid) server running i368/4.6RELEASE with around 800 users,
what
would be a reasonable value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure
this
:
r...@proxy-s ~ grep mcl /var/log/messages
Dec 10 10:13:43 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
* Pete Vickers p...@systemnet.no [2010-03-01 12:28]:
okay, sounds reasonable. I've also 'fiddled with other knobs' too, so I hope
my kern.maxclusters at 8192 should not cause exhaustion conjunction with:
net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=512
net.inet.tcp.recvspace=262144
net.inet.tcp.sendspace
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:48:50PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Pete Vickers p...@systemnet.no [2010-03-01 12:28]:
okay, sounds reasonable. I've also 'fiddled with other knobs' too, so I hope
my kern.maxclusters at 8192 should not cause exhaustion conjunction
* Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com [2010-03-01 15:32]:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:48:50PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Pete Vickers p...@systemnet.no [2010-03-01 12:28]:
okay, sounds reasonable. I've also 'fiddled with other knobs' too, so I
hope
my kern.maxclusters at 8192
On 26. feb. 2010, at 03.01, Aaron Mason wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Pete Vickers p...@systemnet.no wrote:
Hi,
A proxy (squid) server running i368/4.6RELEASE with around 800 users, what
would be a reasonable value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure this
:
r...@proxy-s
value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure this
:
r...@proxy-s ~ grep mcl /var/log/messages
Dec 10 10:13:43 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
Dec 10 11:06:07 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
Dec 15
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Pete Vickers p...@systemnet.no wrote:
Hi,
A proxy (squid) server running i368/4.6RELEASE with around 800 users, what
would be a reasonable value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure this
:
r...@proxy-s ~ grep mcl /var/log/messages
Dec 10 10:13:43
Hi,
A proxy (squid) server running i368/4.6RELEASE with around 800 users, what
would be a reasonable value to increase kern.maxclusters too, to cure this :
r...@proxy-s ~ grep mcl /var/log/messages
Dec 10 10:13:43 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
kern.maxclusters
Dec
Hi
I get 'WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters'
whenever I transfer a large file with sftp or bittorrent on wpi
interface. With bittorent and many peers I get the error after a couple
of minutes, with sftp I get the error after transferring 600+MB or so.
After
35 matches
Mail list logo
