Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-03 Thread Massimo Lusetti
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:45:52 -0500 Ted Unangst wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Steve Johnson > wrote: > > I had forgotten to also include the sysctl changes that I had made > > as well, mostly based from calomel.org, which were the following: > > > > net.inet.ip.ttl=254 > > I love this.

Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-02 Thread Steve Johnson
Ok, thanks for the tip. I've removed the settings through sysctl, but unfortunately I still see those alerts being triggered, then mostly resolved during the next check. The system seems to have some issues during heavy UDP session bursts (the monitoring system issues a stream of requests to a cou

Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-02 Thread Henning Brauer
sigh. remove this bullshit and start over. * Steve Johnson [2011-02-01 22:38]: > Ok, thanks for the tips. I did not have any ifq drops, but have still just > increased the net.inet.icmp.errppslimit to 1 (from the 1000 that was > before and shown below) and will see if that helps anything. Th

Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-01 Thread Ted Unangst
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Steve Johnson wrote: > I had forgotten to also include the sysctl changes that I had made as well, > mostly based from calomel.org, which were the following: > > net.inet.ip.ttl=254 I love this. Bigger is better!

Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-01 Thread Steve Johnson
Ok, thanks for the tips. I did not have any ifq drops, but have still just increased the net.inet.icmp.errppslimit to 1 (from the 1000 that was before and shown below) and will see if that helps anything. Thanks also for the clarification on the match counter. I had forgotten to also include t

Re: PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-01 Thread Henning Brauer
* Steve Johnson [2011-02-01 20:35]: > I currently have a system that has no match rule in the ruleset, but that > uses tables for a big chunk of the traffic, including our monitoring station > that has a pretty high SNMP request rate. That system has a state table that > usually stabilizes between

PF match counter seems to be hitting a limit

2011-02-01 Thread Steve Johnson
Hi, I currently have a system that has no match rule in the ruleset, but that uses tables for a big chunk of the traffic, including our monitoring station that has a pretty high SNMP request rate. That system has a state table that usually stabilizes between 15-20K sessions, with a session search