linux-kernel - Re: large packet loss take2 2.6.31.x

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: <81bfc67a0911181021n1b969565y4a39b181360b5e92@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:21:19 -0500
From:	Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@...il.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: large packet loss take2 2.6.31.x

> Actually, I'm a little bit surprised. Maybe I missed something from
> your previous messages, but I expected something more similar to the
> first wireshark dump, which suggested to me there was only this mtr
> traffic. Now there is a lot more (plus we know it's not all).

probably just me lazy at 5 am? did I do the dump on the router right
so it wasn't showing traffic that's just idling from other computers
(windows likes to make a lot of noise). I could do it by ip...

> So, there is a basic question: can this mtr loss be seen while no
> other traffic is present? After looking into these current dumps I
> doubt. There are e.g. 3 pings unanswered between 09:21:50 and
> 09:21:52 (21:31:34 to 21:31:38 router time), but a lot of tcp
> packets to and from 192.168.1.3, so looks like simply dropped and
> we can guess the reason.

yes. this was at a fairly low traffic time of day. 5am only 2 people
were up, and I was using the other computer during. I've had everyone
actively doing one or more of downloading/uploading/video/voip/gaming
stuff on this network with no noticeable packet loss. if really,
really needed I can probably restrict this network to 2 machines for
the duration of the test.

> Since this patch from the bisection is really limited to this one
> module I doubt we should follow this direction. IMHO it shows the
> test wasn't reproducible enough. Probably the amount and/or kind of
> other traffic really matter. If I'm wrong and missed something again
> let me know. Btw, could you try if changing with ifconfig the
> txqueuelen of desktop's eth0 from 100 to 1000 changes anything
> in this mtr test?

yeah testing it under my known working config first. I'll get back w/ you later.
-- 
Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
--
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/