On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:30:30AM +0100, Pete Vickers wrote: > 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 ~> 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 13:41:48 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase > >> kern.maxclusters > >> > >> > >> r...@proxy-s ~> sysctl kern.maxclusters > >> kern.maxclusters=6144 > >> > >> > >> r...@proxy-s ~> netstat -m > >> 4098 mbufs in use: > >> 1131 mbufs allocated to data > >> 2962 mbufs allocated to packet headers > >> 5 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses > >> 1084/6152/6144 mbuf 2048 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 4096 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 8192 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 9216 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 12288 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 16384 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 0/8/6144 mbuf 65536 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > >> 14176 Kbytes allocated to network (22% in use) > >> 0 requests for memory denied > >> 0 requests for memory delayed > >> 0 calls to protocol drain routines > >> > >> > >> something like kern.maxclusters=10000 or ? > >> > >> > >> > >> /Pete > >> > >> > > > > Only you can answer that, Pete. > > > > Try increasing it gradually until the errors go away. And if the > > error returns, increase it again. If it makes your system unstable, > > lower it until it returns to stability. Increments (and decrements, > > if necessary) of 256 would probably be wise. > > > > Getting the right balance with any system is all about trial and error > > - trying different things until things are running smoothly - or > > acceptably so in some situations. It's also about the balance between > > workability and stability. Sometimes you just can't have your cake > > and eat it too - stability must be the priority. > > > > My $0.02 there. > > > > -- > > Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict > > I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse > > > > Hi, > > > Indeed, the only problem is that if it's too low, then the system hangs.
I guess only the network hangs. Since there is no clusters available to be used by drivers or other sockets. Normaly the system should not hangup itself because of that. > Presumably if it's too high, then the 'system instability' manifests itself > has hanging too, so it's tricky to tell which way to go, once you deviate from > the norm ... > Yes, if set too high you can run out the kernel of memory (physical or virtual) which is normaly causing a panic or freze. > Anyway for the archives I'm trying 8192 currently, hopefully that will reduce > the crashes... > > > 6016 mbufs in use: > 2151 mbufs allocated to data > 3860 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 5 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses > 1979/5664/8192 mbuf 2048 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 4096 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 8192 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 9216 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 12288 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 16384 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/8192 mbuf 65536 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 14048 Kbytes allocated to network (38% in use) > Your allocationg a max of 8192 2k buffers or 4096 4k pages or 16MB of memory. On a modern system with > 1GB of memory everything below 64MB or 128k clusters should work if you don't fiddle with other knobs that rob all memory from the kernel. -- :wq Claudio
