linux-kernel - Re: Routing 600+ vlan's via linux problems (looks like arp problems)

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]

Message-ID: <20070504053027.GA32604@1wt.eu>
Date:	Fri, 4 May 2007 07:30:27 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Øyvind Vågen Jægtnes <lorrides@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Routing 600+ vlan's via linux problems (looks like arp problems)

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:48:18AM +0200, Øyvind Vågen Jægtnes wrote:
> Hi again :)
> 
> On 5/4/07, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> >On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:12:09PM +0200, Øyvind Vågen Jægtnes wrote:
> >> On 5/3/07, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On May 3 2007 22:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> >>> For the rest all we see in the arp cache is (incomplete)
> >> >>
> >> >>I suspect that your arp cache is full (128 entries by default).
> >> >>Check /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/gc_thresh1 (128 for me). You can
> >> >>set it as high as gc_thresh2 (512 for me), and I don't know what
> >> >>happens above.
> >> >
> >> >Above, you will perhaps need the not-so-elegant userspace arpd :-/
> >>
> >> Yes, i was suspecting that the arp cache got full, but i will try
> >> increasing it :)
> >> Would there be any huge bugs if i change these lines in arp.c:
> >>
> >>        .gc_thresh1 =   128,
> >>        .gc_thresh2 =   512,
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >>        .gc_thresh1 =   700,
> >>        .gc_thresh2 =   700,
> >>
> >> under the definition for struct arp_tbl?
> >
> >I don't think it could cause a problem, but network people will surely
> >correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> System is up and running perfectly now, it is routing everything at
> about 200 mbps now with only 5% load avg with the above changes to
> arp.c
> 
> So the real question now is, why is this number so low by default?
> It would probably be much better if this could be handled dynamically
> in the kernel.

I remember I read an argument against this a long time ago, but I
don't remember where. I think it was some arbitrary decision that
people using more than X ARP entries will need arpd. Most probably
the code path in the ARP updates is/was not much optimized to handle
large number of entries. Think about cable operators who may have
10-20000 entries !

> Its a Juniper M7i
> It comes default with a 5400 rpm laptop 2.5" harddrive but now we
> bought a more robust "server" 2.5" harddrive.

The "server" ones are not necessarily more robust, often they are faster.

> It still barfs on the OS
> install, so the linux is doing all the job now. Will get a juniper guy
> to come and fix :)
> 
> As a side note, i'm starting to wonder if it was worth the $20k when i
> could just have a linux machine to do the job with a clone for backup
> ;)

That's often how linux penetrates the enterprise ;-)

Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/