❦ 2 décembre 2019 22:48 +01, Vincent Bernat :
> Also, from 4.2, the cache entries are only created for exceptions (PMTU
> notably). So, in fact, the initial value should be mostly safe. You can
> monitor it with `/proc/net/rt6_stats`. This is the before last value. If
> you can share what you ha
❦ 2 décembre 2019 21:58 +01, Alarig Le Lay :
>> For IPv6, this is the size of the routing cache. If you have more than
>> 4096 active hosts, Linux will aggressively try to run garbage
>> collection, eating CPU. In this case, increase both
>> net.ipv6.route.max_size and net.ipv6.route.gc_thresh.
Hi Vincent,
On lun. 2 déc. 21:38:21 2019, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> For IPv6, this is the size of the routing cache. If you have more than
> 4096 active hosts, Linux will aggressively try to run garbage
> collection, eating CPU. In this case, increase both
> net.ipv6.route.max_size and net.ipv6.rou
❦ 1 décembre 2019 19:20 +01, Clément Guivy :
> Hi, that's good news. One thing that still confuses me though is that
> the default values for these settings are the same in Debian 9 (4.9
> kernel) and Debian 10 (4.19 kernel), so I would expect the behaviour
> to be the same between both versions
On 01/12/2019 18:20, Clément Guivy wrote:
> On 01/12/2019 13:43, Frederik Kriewitz wrote:
>> This is our current suspicion too. neighbours and routes are well
>> below 4096 in our case. We also had to adjust
>> net.ipv6.neigh.default.gc_thresh1/2/3. Since the adjustment it's been
>> working fine.
>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 07:30:27AM +, Kenth Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-11-26 at 15:59 +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe reply code issue is caused by the following lines since reply
> > > code 3 is used twice...
> > >
> > > if (cd == c->last_reply)
> > > size = bsprint
