From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Kukard Subject: Re: ip_queue & QUEUE target Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:35:05 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030615183504.GG2103@lbsd.net> References: <20030615155352.GD2103@lbsd.net> <3EECA7B2.5090300@trash.net> <20030615180031.GE2103@lbsd.net> <3EECB5F4.7010004@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo" Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EECB5F4.7010004@trash.net> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Probably not much, but did you make sure you also increased > /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max ? If you don't mind your statistics > beeing wrong (better than high drop rates imho) you could > modify ip_queue so it nf_reinjects packets which could not > be sent instead of returning a error to nf_queue. >=20 What about DIVERT sockets, would these be reliable? -Nigel --bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+7LxYKoUGSidwLE4RAlKCAKCgI+d/4nP66VOvbg22Ee8QHm7hTwCfcTUz 6aXNOC0J98WBjS19OADnYbE= =jXrK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bO4vSxwwZtUjUWHo--