On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Milam, Chad wrote:
> > can only give you some CPU cycles. Touching max_size should be
> > enough.
> no. Increasing max_size only delays its death. That is my point. The problem
> existed on an out of the box RH7, RH6.2, RH6.1 install. The whole point of the
> patch was to fix a problem that existed _prior_ to me patching it.
I assume you mean a plain kernel (without Check Point?).
> > Are you sure you have stalled entries? What shows /proc/slabinfo
> > after 22 hours (skbuff_head_cache, etc)?
> well, what I can tell you is this. If I run a loop like the following, counter
> will only show say, 50 routes in the cache.
It means there are 50 linked cache entries but the
ipv4_dst_ops.entries reaches the limit, very strange.
> > for i in down up ; do ip link set ethXXX $i ; done
> downing all interfaces and reupping them does not seem to solve the problem
> either :S
I mean when you see the dst cache overflow message can the
command help? But ... may be are running a kernel patched with your
changes. I'm asking this because I know cases where wrong changes
can make problems with dst cache. But the plain kernel should be
fine. One question more: can you say that this box is used only as
router or what kind of TCP or UDP connections you have (to/from the
box)? There can be some corner cases in the dst cache usage from
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>