[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Doubts about listen backlog and tcp_max_syn_backlog
On 01/24/2013 11:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:44:32AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>> On 01/24/2013 04:22 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:28:08AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>>>>> Then if syncookies are enabled, the time spent in connect() shouldn't be
>>>>> bigger than 3 seconds even if SYNs are being "dropped" by listen, right?
>>>> Do you mean if "ESTABLISHED" connections are dropped because the
>>>> listen queue is full? I don't think I would put that as "SYNs being
>>>> dropped by listen" - too easy to confuse that with an actual
>>>> dropping of a SYN segment.
>>> I was just kind of quoting the name given by netstat: "SYNs to LISTEN
>>> sockets dropped" (for kernel 3.0, I noticed newer kernels don't have
>>> this stat anymore, or the name was changed). I still don't know if we
>>> are talking about the same thing.
>> I will sometimes be tripped-up by netstat's not showing a statistic
>> with a zero value...

Leandro, you should be able to do an nstat -z, it will print all counters even if zero. You should see something like so:

ipv4]> nstat -z
IpInReceives 2135 0.0
IpInHdrErrors 0 0.0
IpInAddrErrors 202 0.0

You might want to take a look at those (your pkts may not even be making it to tcp) and these in particular:

TcpExtSyncookiesSent 0 0.0
TcpExtSyncookiesRecv 0 0.0
TcpExtSyncookiesFailed 0 0.0
TcpExtListenOverflows 0 0.0
TcpExtListenDrops 0 0.0
TcpExtTCPBacklogDrop 0 0.0
TcpExtTCPMinTTLDrop 0 0.0
TcpExtTCPDeferAcceptDrop 0 0.0

If you don't have nstat on that version for some reason, download the latest iproute pkg. Looking at the counter names is a lot more helpful and precise than the netstat converstion to human consumption.

> Yes, I already did captures and we are definitely loosing packets
> (including SYNs), but it looks like the amount of SYNs I'm loosing is
> lower than the amount of long connect() times I observe. This is not
> confirmed yet, I'm still investigating.

Where did you narrow down the drop to? There are quite a few places in the networking stack we silently drop packets (such as the one pointed out earlier in this thread), although they should almost all be extremely low probability/NEVER type events. Do you want a patch to gap the most likely scenario? (I'll post that to netdev separately).


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-25 07:41    [W:0.060 / U:4.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site