On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 09:27:51AM -0600, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said Claudio Jeker on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:28:31 +0200:
Wrong UDP is normaly not a fully defined 4 touple. Especially the
listening sockets (on port 53) can be slammed with packets. On the
other hand, if the
* Martin Pelikan martin.peli...@gmail.com [2010-09-09 12:24]:
It depends on what do you need. The defaults suffice for most cases,
but on our most loaded router we use tcp both 256k and udp send space
which is bullshit on a router, since rcv/send space is for sockets and
irrelevant for
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:20:30PM -0600, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said Claudio Jeker on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:36:16 +0200:
Because on busy servers you need to queue quite a few packets to
handle bursts.
I was under the impression that UDP is connectionless and therefore
does
Thus said Claudio Jeker on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:28:31 +0200:
Wrong UDP is normaly not a fully defined 4 touple. Especially the
listening sockets (on port 53) can be slammed with packets. On the
other hand, if the recvbuffer overflows then packets just get dropped.
Thank you for the
2010/9/10, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org:
these affect traffic sourced from the box itself, *not* routed through it.
We had to do quite extensive link testing because of strange packet
loss on the SDH circuit. The buffer sizes really mattered :-) But
thanks to the information as the link
Thus said =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Pelik=C3=A1n?= on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:21:17 +0200:
It depends on what do you need. The defaults suffice for most cases,
but on our most loaded router we use tcp both 256k and udp send space
65k (lots of dns). Just test it somewhere.
Why would you need 65k UDP
2010/9/10, Andy Bradford
amb-sendok-1286721307.iadidoklmfcciicnc...@bradfords.org:
Why would you need 65k UDP for DNS? Almost all UDP based DNS responses
are under 512 bytes, those that are larger are required to set the
truncated bit and the client restart the query using TCP.
We have
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:35:04AM -0600, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Pelik=C3=A1n?= on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:21:17 +0200:
It depends on what do you need. The defaults suffice for most cases,
but on our most loaded router we use tcp both 256k and udp send space
65k
Martin Pelik??n [martin.peli...@gmail.com] wrote:
2010/9/10, Andy Bradford
amb-sendok-1286721307.iadidoklmfcciicnc...@bradfords.org:
Why would you need 65k UDP for DNS? Almost all UDP based DNS responses
are under 512 bytes, those that are larger are required to set the
truncated
2010/9/10, Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net:
Stop using ALTQ on your DNS server, perhaps? That may be what is causing
the back-pressure that you're seeing.
Why do you think it would help? Those lots of packets would arrive
anyway, only the decent user will wait longer for his website to load.
Martin Pelik??n [martin.peli...@gmail.com] wrote:
2010/9/10, Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net:
Stop using ALTQ on your DNS server, perhaps? That may be what is causing
the back-pressure that you're seeing.
Why do you think it would help? Those lots of packets would arrive
anyway, only
Thus said Claudio Jeker on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:36:16 +0200:
Because on busy servers you need to queue quite a few packets to
handle bursts.
I was under the impression that UDP is connectionless and therefore
does not behave the same as a TCP connection. I would guess that
2010/9/8, Joe Warren-Meeks joe.warren.me...@gmail.com:
I've had a weird problem happen twice now. It seems after about 4 - 6
weeks of running very happily, both servers lock up completely at the
same time. Both consoles show no error messages, but the cursor is
blinking away happily. Neither
2010/9/9 Martin Pelikan martin.peli...@gmail.com:
Hello Martin,
I thought the same when I played with TCP buffers set to 1M and after
some heavy load tests I went out of RAM quite soon :-) The machine had
2G.
Well, the machine has 6Gb of RAM and is only pushing 10Mbit/s of
traffic at peak.
2010/9/9, Joe Warren-Meeks joe.warren.me...@gmail.com:
Well, the machine has 6Gb of RAM and is only pushing 10Mbit/s of
traffic at peak. It does need to maintain a largeish state table, as
it is predominatly web traffic, but I've run much much larger and
busier sites behind much smaller
Joe Warren-Meeks wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm running two HPDL360 G5 servers with OpenBSD 4.6+carp+pf+pfsync as
an active/passive firewall pair.
Both are running: (full dmesg at bottom, along with edited pf.conf, in
case it's relevant)
j...@f2:/home/joe uname -a
OpenBSD f2 4.6 GENERIC.MP#81 amd64
On 2010-09-09, Martin Pelik??n martin.peli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/9, Joe Warren-Meeks joe.warren.me...@gmail.com:
recv/send:
net.inet.tcp.recvspace=16384
net.inet.udp.recvspace=41600
j...@f1:/home/joe sysctl -a |grep send
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=16384
net.inet.udp.sendspace=9216
Too
Hey guys,
I'm running two HPDL360 G5 servers with OpenBSD 4.6+carp+pf+pfsync as
an active/passive firewall pair.
Both are running: (full dmesg at bottom, along with edited pf.conf, in
case it's relevant)
j...@f2:/home/joe uname -a
OpenBSD f2 4.6 GENERIC.MP#81 amd64
I've had a weird problem
18 matches
Mail list logo
