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]

Message-ID: <1305851079.8149.1127.camel@tardy>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 17:24:39 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TCP funny-ness when over-driving a 1Gbps link.

> >> [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.

> > 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.

rick

--
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