[leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log)
Hi, I had a freeze on the system ten minutes ago and found this on the logs...firewall and the connection was OK after a minute or so. No booting or any other measures needed. My connection is blasted with some traffic, there are 1623 denied or rejected packets in logs and FW has been up for three days now. At the time of this log I was accessing the shorewall.log from weblet. Is there something that interests the developers? Do you need additional info? (http://192.168.1.254/cgi-bin/viewlogs?messages.3.gz+messages.2.gz+messages.1.gz+messages.0+messages) LOG ** Jan 19 12:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- Jan 19 16:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- Jan 19 20:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- Jan 20 00:01:10 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:17 firewall last message repeated 17 times Jan 20 00:01:17 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:17 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:18 firewall last message repeated 2 times Jan 20 00:01:19 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:20 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:21 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:22 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:25 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:25 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:25 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:25 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:25 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:27 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:29 firewall last message repeated 4 times Jan 20 00:01:29 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:29 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:33 firewall last message repeated 8 times Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:36 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:40 firewall last message repeated 4 times Jan 20 00:01:40 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) Jan 20 00:01:40 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) Jan 20 00:01:40 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
Re: [leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log)
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Marko Nurmenniemi wrote: > Hi, > > I had a freeze on the system ten minutes ago and found this on the > logs...firewall and the connection was OK after a minute or so. No > booting or any other measures needed. > > My connection is blasted with some traffic, there are 1623 denied or > rejected packets in logs and FW has been up for three days now. At the > time of this log I was accessing the shorewall.log from weblet. > > Is there something that interests the developers? > Do you need additional info? > > (http://192.168.1.254/cgi-bin/viewlogs?messages.3.gz+messages.2.gz+messages.1.gz+messages.0+messages) > LOG ** > Jan 19 12:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- > Jan 19 16:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- > Jan 19 20:40:54 firewall -- MARK -- > Jan 20 00:01:10 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation > failed (gfp=0x1d2/0) > Jan 20 00:01:17 firewall last message repeated 17 times > Jan 20 00:01:17 firewall kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation > failed (gfp=0x1f0/0) This is a kernel issue... if it corresponds to a bug, kernel programmers will have to be informed of it. However, I suspect not, since: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2003-Jul/1203.html suggests that this is a symptom of low memory. (Subsequent discussion suggests that a full root filesystem can do this also.) Low memory can occur if your router is NATing a lot of different connections (even short duration ones). Adding memory or reshuffling your ramdisk allocations may help in such cases. looking at /proc/net/ip_conntrack can give you an idea of the number of connections being supported. --- Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --- --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log)
Dear All ... Because of some bad condition , I have to write many lines of static address. There is no chance to use such OSPF or BGP. Is there a chance to summarize the route ? What i need is just i.e : Combining 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.1/24 into single 10.0.0.0/23. FYI .. curently the static route table contain 1000+ lines ... arrrgh Sincerely -bino- --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log)
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, bino-psn wrote: > Dear All ... > Because of some bad condition , I have to write many lines of static > address. > There is no chance to use such OSPF or BGP. > > Is there a chance to summarize the route ? > What i need is just i.e : Combining 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.1/24 into single > 10.0.0.0/23. > FYI .. curently the static route table contain 1000+ lines ... arrrgh Sorry, bino... this request doesn't make much sense as stated. Perhaps you mean 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24 can be represented as 10.0.0.0/23... which it can, but then I don't see any problem at all... certainly not one that requires 1000+ lines of routing table. If you have a situation where you are trying to split one large network into two, with addresses randomly distributed on either side, you will be a lot better off renumbering the clients. If you start using dhcp at this point, at least the problem will be more manageable next time. --- Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --- --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
SubNet summarize (Re: [leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log))
Hi Jeff and all .. The condition is that my network have 2 ISP connection. I need to set the SNAT and default route based on the request destination. This 2 connections only a small connection .. thats why the ISP don't want to speak OSPF nor BGP with me .. in fact I don't have my own /24 ip address .. no chance for BGP Sincerely -bino- - Original Message - From: "Jeff Newmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "bino-psn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "leaf-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Bering-uClibc 2.1 rc1 (messages log) > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, bino-psn wrote: > > > Dear All ... > > Because of some bad condition , I have to write many lines of static > > address. > > There is no chance to use such OSPF or BGP. > > > > Is there a chance to summarize the route ? > > What i need is just i.e : Combining 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.1/24 into single > > 10.0.0.0/23. > > FYI .. curently the static route table contain 1000+ lines ... arrrgh > > Sorry, bino... this request doesn't make much sense as stated. > > Perhaps you mean 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24 can be represented as > 10.0.0.0/23... which it can, but then I don't see any problem at > all... certainly not one that requires 1000+ lines of routing table. > > If you have a situation where you are trying to split one large network > into two, with addresses randomly distributed on either side, you will be > a lot better off renumbering the clients. If you start using dhcp at this > point, at least the problem will be more manageable next time. > > -- - > Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... > DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... > Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing > Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with > /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k > -- - > > --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
