Subject: Re: is this bad (UDP stats)?
To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>
From: Erik E. Fair <fair@clock.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/26/1998 02:10:58
At 23:02 -0800 10/25/98, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:15:46 -0800
> "Erik E. Fair" <fair@clock.org> wrote:
>
> > 443201 PCB hash misses
>
> > What's up with all those PCB hash misses?
>
>That stat is incremented if in_pcblookup_connect() fails on the incoming
>packet. I.e. whatever application the packet is for isn't using connected
>UDP.
>
>For a while now we've used a hash for unconnected sockets, too, but
>I suppose the stat counter was never updated. In any case, the
>lookup_connect, by its very nature, is more efficient than the lookup_bind;
>just take a look at the code in in_pcb.c to see why.
Interesting. However, that explanation conflicts with the configuration I'm
using for NFS:
192.168.110.25:/nbsd/current/src /usr/src nfs rw,-C 0 0
192.168.110.25:/usr/local /usr/local nfs ro,-C 0 0
192.168.110.25:/emul /emul nfs ro,-C 0 0
Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll
le0 1500 <Link> 08:00:20:04:d3:67 29122 0 13325 0 7
le0 1500 198.68.110 198.68.110.24 29122 0 13325 0 7
le1 1500 <Link> 08:00:20:04:d3:67 3013 0 2534 0 3
le1 1500 192.168.110 192.168.110.24 3013 0 2534 0 3
lo0 32976 <Link> 303 0 303 0 0
lo0 32976 127 127.0.0.1 303 0 303 0 0
Active Internet connections
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address (state)
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1.123 *.*
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.123 *.*
udp 0 0 198.68.110.24.123 *.*
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.1020 192.168.110.25.2049
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.1021 192.168.110.25.2049
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.1022 192.168.110.25.2049
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.1023 192.168.110.25.2049
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1.53 *.*
udp 0 0 192.168.110.24.53 *.*
udp 0 0 198.68.110.24.53 *.*
udp:
15156 datagrams received
0 with incomplete header
0 with bad data length field
0 with bad checksum
49 dropped due to no socket
1589 broadcast/multicast datagrams dropped due to no socket
0 dropped due to full socket buffers
13518 delivered
11346 PCB hash misses
15307 datagrams output
Or have I misinterpreted you?
Erik <fair@clock.org>