netdev - Re: TCP funny-ness when over-driving a 1Gbps link.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 17:37:07 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	rick.jones2@...com
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TCP funny-ness when over-driving a 1Gbps link.

On 05/19/2011 05:24 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
>>>> [root@...965-1 igb]# netstat -an|grep tcp|grep 8.1.1
>>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33038               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
>>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33040               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
>>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33042               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
>>>> tcp        0 9328612 8.1.1.2:33039               8.1.1.1:33040               ESTABLISHED
>>>> tcp        0 17083176 8.1.1.1:33038               8.1.1.2:33037               ESTABLISHED
>>>> tcp        0 9437340 8.1.1.2:33037               8.1.1.1:33038               ESTABLISHED
>>>> tcp        0 17024620 8.1.1.1:33040               8.1.1.2:33039               ESTABLISHED
>>>> tcp        0 19557040 8.1.1.1:33042               8.1.1.2:33041               ESTABLISHED
>>>> tcp        0 9416600 8.1.1.2:33041               8.1.1.1:33042               ESTABLISHED
>>>
>>> I take it your system has higher values for the tcp_wmem value:
>>>
>>> net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 16384 4194304
>>
>> Yes:
>> [root@...965-1 igb]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem
>> 4096	16384	50000000
>
> Why?!?  Are you trying to get link-rate to Mars or something?  (I assume
> tcp_rmem is similarly set...)  If you are indeed doing one 1 GbE, and no
> more than 100ms then the default (?) of 4194304 should have been more
> than sufficient.

Well, we occasionally do tests over emulated links that have several
seconds of delay and may be running multiple Gbps.  Either way,
I'd hope that offering extra RAM to a subsystem wouldn't cause it
to go nuts.  Assuming this isn't some magical 1Gbps issue, you
could probably hit the same problem with a wifi link and
default tcp_wmem settings...

>>> and whatever is creating the TCP connections is not making explicit
>>> setsockopt() calls to set SO_*BUF.
>>
>> It is configured not to, but if you know of an independent way to verify
>> that, I'm interested.
>
> You could always strace the code.

Yeah...might be easier in this case to just comment out all those calls
and do a quick test.  Will be tomorrow before I can get to
that, however..

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html