[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131016113500.GA7660@secunet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:35:00 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Damian Pietras <damianp@...er.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "xfrm: Fix the gc threshold value for ipv4" broke my IPSec
connections
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:51:26PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 00:15 +0200, Damian Pietras wrote:
> > On 15.10.2013 23:02, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >> 703fb94ec58e0e8769380c2877a8a34aeb5b6c97
> > >> xfrm: Fix the gc threshold value for ipv4
> > >>
> > >> Reverting it on 3.10.15 fixes my issue. This seems to be there from 3.7
> > >> and I don't really believe such simple case stayed broken for so long.
> > >> Em I missing something or there is really a bug?
> > >>
> > >> If smeone is interested in details of this configuration and commands
> > >> I'm running, just let me know. This was reproduced with few VMs under XEN.
> > >>
> > >
> > > It looks like you need to tune /proc/sys/net/ipv4/xfrm4_gc_thresh to a
> > > sensible value given your workload.
> > >
> > > try :
> > >
> > > echo 65536 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/xfrm4_gc_thresh
> > >
> > > Presumably the 1024 default is really too small...
> >
> > Now it's working in my test setup, I'm changing it on the production
> > boxes, thanks!
> >
> >
>
> Steffen, what do you think ?
>
> 1024 seems really small, given we had much higher values.
Sure, we can increase the default value, maybe along with the ipv6 side.
Any recomendation on a good default for both?
>
> (256 K on a 1GB host)
>
> This sysctl also needs an entry in
> Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
>
Yes, it's undocumented. I'll take care of it.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists