On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:25:27PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:43:09PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> A> I'm currently looking into a) applying a rate limiter to the message (as
> suggested
> A> by Luigi); and b) add a per-socket accept queue overflow statistic th
On 12.07.2013 10:25, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:43:09PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> >> Andriy for example would never have found out about this problem other
A> >> than receiving vague user complaints about aborted connection attempts.
A> >> Maybe after spending many hou
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:43:09PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> >> Andriy for example would never have found out about this problem other
A> >> than receiving vague user complaints about aborted connection attempts.
A> >> Maybe after spending many hours searching for the cause he may have
A> >>
on 11/07/2013 18:43 Andre Oppermann said the following:
> I'm currently looking into a) applying a rate limiter to the message (as
> suggested
> by Luigi); and b) add a per-socket accept queue overflow statistic that is
> visible
> via netstat. I'll post patches for testing when done.
Thank you
On 11.07.2013 17:04, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 11/07/2013 17:28 Andre Oppermann said the following:
Andriy for example would never have found out about this problem other
than receiving vague user complaints about aborted connection attempts.
Maybe after spending many hours searching for the cause
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:49:25PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> L> >> IMO, this should be a single counter accessible via sysctl, with no
> L> >> printf(). Those, who need details on whether this is micro-burst or
> L> >> persistent condition,
on 11/07/2013 17:28 Andre Oppermann said the following:
> Andriy for example would never have found out about this problem other
> than receiving vague user complaints about aborted connection attempts.
> Maybe after spending many hours searching for the cause he may have
> interfered from endless
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:49:25PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> >> IMO, this should be a single counter accessible via sysctl, with no
L> >> printf(). Those, who need details on whether this is micro-burst or
L> >> persistent condition, can run monitoring software that draws plots.
L> >
L> >
L> > T
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 11.07.2013 15:35, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> A> On 11.07.2013 09:05, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> A> > kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfe0047db3930: Listen queue overflow: 193
>>
On 11.07.2013 15:35, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> On 11.07.2013 09:05, Andriy Gapon wrote:
A> > kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfe0047db3930: Listen queue overflow: 193
already in
A> > queue awaiting acceptance
A> > last message repeated 1
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> On 11.07.2013 09:05, Andriy Gapon wrote:
A> > kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfe0047db3930: Listen queue overflow: 193
already in
A> > queue awaiting acceptance
A> > last message repeated 113 times
A> > last message repeated 518 time
On 11.07.2013 09:05, Andriy Gapon wrote:
kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfe0047db3930: Listen queue overflow: 193 already in
queue awaiting acceptance
last message repeated 113 times
last message repeated 518 times
last message repeated 2413 times
last message repeated 2041 times
last message repeat
kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfe0047db3930: Listen queue overflow: 193 already in
queue awaiting acceptance
last message repeated 113 times
last message repeated 518 times
last message repeated 2413 times
last message repeated 2041 times
last message repeated 1741 times
last message repeated 1543 ti
13 matches
Mail list logo
