netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

2.6.0-test11: dst_cache_overflow causing unresponsive box

To: <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 2.6.0-test11: dst_cache_overflow causing unresponsive box
From: "Francois Baligant" <francois@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:32:17 +0100
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
We have a problem with a box running 2.6.0-test11-mjb1 and supporting around 
90k simultaneous TCP connection. After a few hours/days of running,
when a lots of clients connects/disconnects, the console will start to display:

dst cache overflow
NET: 1860 messages suppressed.
dst cache overflow
NET: 1858 messages suppressed.


From there, the box is completely unresponsive, apparently eating all its CPU 
in trying to shrink the routing cache. Only solution is reboot.

Current sysctl:
net.ipv4.route.max_size = 655360 # I know we shouldn't rise it that high but 
it's only cure for now.. it lasts a bit longer like this
net.ipv4.route.gc_min_interval = 2
net.ipv4.route.gc_interval = 10
net.ipv4.route.gc_timeout = 30

rtstat:
 size   IN: hit     tot    mc no_rt bcast madst masrc  OUT: hit     tot     mc 
GC: tot ignored goal_miss ovrf HASH: in_search out_search
139566     12393     123     0     0     0     0     0       184      21      0 
    143     142         0    0           26039        375
138876     13080     136     0     0     0     0     0       159      19      0 
    155     154         0    0           27153        277
139006     12317     125     0     0     0     0     0       180      28      0 
    153     153         0    0           25810        377
139138     13799     140     0     0     0     0     0       159      16      0 
    156     156         0    0           28375        331
139275     11610     128     0     0     0     0     0       177      27      0 
    154     153         0    0           23977        343
139383     12679     124     0     0     0     0     0       173      17      0 
    141     140         0    0           26717        398
139256     11946     135     0     0     0     0     0       166      17      0 
    152     151         0    0           24874        304
139353     11646     109     0     0     0     0     0       174      14      0 
    122     122         0    0           24165        320
138257     12702     116     0     0     0     0     0       180      16      0 
    131     130         0    0           26324        358
138369     12897     115     0     0     0     0     0       166      20      0 
    134     134         0    0           26819        339
138553     11309     133     0     0     0     0     0       158      33      0 
    165     165         0    0           21270        389
138172     17232     182     0     0     0     0     0       125      44      0 
    225     225         0    0           29702        375
138420     17407     182     0     0     0     0     0       165      73      0 
    254     253         0    0           29946        548
138833     17052     257     0     0     0     0     0       195     126      0 
    382     381         0    0           29715        812
139051     16606     224     0     0     0     0     0       238      97      0 
    320     319         0    0           28559        721
139217     18115     176     0     0     0     0     0       268      51      0 
    224     224         0    0           32983        527
139326     17531     178     0     0     0     0     0       291      44      0 
    220     220         0    0           33320        445
139422     15244     140     0     0     0     0     0       357      20      0 
    160     160         0    0           29934        415
139548     13123     142     0     0     0     0     0       281      12      0 
    154     154         0    0           26430        351
139684     13290     142     0     0     0     0     0       235      10      0 
    152     151         0    0           27341        309

  OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME                   
142340 142296  99%    0.38K  14234       10     56936K ip_dst_cache

Are we tuning the rt_cache in a wrong way ?

regards,
Francois

Francois Baligant - http://www.pingouin.be
Change the numbers, change your Life!
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>