From: Christian Schmid <webmaster@rapidforum.com>
To: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
Cc: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:36:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4219B99E.1000603@rapidforum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050221090121.GA7478@outpost.ds9a.nl>
bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 01:35:33AM +0100, Christian Schmid wrote:
>
>
>>New connections get made without any problems. Just existing connections
>>slow down painfully.
>
>
> Incoming our outgoing data mostly?
Outgoing data. I am using sendfile() to send the file on a non-blocking socket but the call blocks
for 100 ms per socket if I get over 3000 sockets. Thats causing the massive slowdown in sum. I first
thought its a disk-issue but I tried with pure-cache data as well and it still blocks.
>>3000 sockets = no slowdown at all (500 MBit in use)
>>3300 sockets = 10% slowdown
>>3600 sockets = 30% slowdown
>>4000 sockets = 60% slowdown (i aborted here, as it only uses 200 MBit for
>>sending... catastrophy!)
>>
>>They are all receiving data. Its a download-service. receive-buffer is set
>>to 24 KB and send-buffer set to 224 KB. I don't see a problem with
>>port-space. I only have 3500 sockets when the problem appears but it
>>appears suddenly.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused, it is a download service so you are probably *sending*
> data?
Only sending. Receiving ACKs of course.
>>>But it would help if you looked at the stats and ifconfig
>>>to see who's dropping packets, how many retransmissions there
>>>are, memory failures, or the bottleneck is some other issue altogether...
>>
>>No way. Doing 30000 packets per second and your stats are 32 bit integers ;)
> So? You could be a bit more helpful. Sample over 5 seconds, you won't
> overflow that.
5 seconds, here you go:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:30:48:27:84:28
inet addr:80.237.244.12 Bcast:80.237.244.63 Mask:255.255.255.192
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2861390424 errors:5991038 dropped:5991056 overruns:38681 frame:4294967287
TX packets:2906616171 errors:4294967279 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:4294967278
collisions:4294967289 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:1613084024 (1538.3 Mb) TX bytes:2528808392 (2411.6 Mb)
Base address:0x4000 Memory:fc000000-fc020000
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:30:48:27:84:28
inet addr:80.237.244.12 Bcast:80.237.244.63 Mask:255.255.255.192
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2861511619 errors:5991038 dropped:5991056 overruns:38681 frame:4294967287
TX packets:2906804392 errors:4294967279 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:4294967278
collisions:4294967289 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:1625289307 (1549.9 Mb) TX bytes:2802520805 (2672.6 Mb)
Base address:0x4000 Memory:fc000000-fc020000
> Also, can you tcpdump a bit? Are you using iptables? The conntrack table
> might be slowing you down.
Hmmm tcpdump what exactly? I am using iptables and the conntrack-problem has been solved in the past
already by disabling conn-tracking. The table overran and it dropped packets massively. I disabled
conn-tracking and the problem was gone. This is a different problem though.
> I have a hunch this problem has to do with high-mem issues though.
Well, 6 GB of high-mem, 2 GB of low-mem... at least there is not too less memory.
MemTotal: 8314392 kB
MemFree: 13936 kB
Buffers: 28732 kB
Cached: 7926792 kB
SwapCached: 0 kB
Active: 3129028 kB
Inactive: 5031240 kB
HighTotal: 6421952 kB
HighFree: 640 kB
LowTotal: 1892440 kB
LowFree: 13296 kB
SwapTotal: 0 kB
SwapFree: 0 kB
Dirty: 54160 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
Mapped: 210108 kB
Slab: 128176 kB
CommitLimit: 4157196 kB
Committed_AS: 674072 kB
PageTables: 1604 kB
VmallocTotal: 114680 kB
VmallocUsed: 1160 kB
VmallocChunk: 113416 kB
Best regards,
Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-21 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-21 0:05 Annoying bug with many sockets Christian Schmid
2005-02-21 0:26 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-02-21 0:35 ` Christian Schmid
2005-02-21 9:01 ` many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few bert hubert
2005-02-21 10:36 ` Christian Schmid [this message]
2005-02-21 12:02 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-02-21 12:25 ` bert hubert
2005-02-21 12:36 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-02-21 17:17 ` Christian Schmid
2005-02-21 17:24 ` bert hubert
2005-02-21 19:10 ` Christian Schmid
2005-02-21 17:29 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2005-02-21 19:11 ` Christian Schmid
2005-02-21 13:59 ` Baruch Even
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4219B99E.1000603@rapidforum.com \
--to=webmaster@rapidforum.com \
--cc=ahu@ds9a.nl \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).