Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!tjh+
From: tjh+@andrew.cmu.edu (Tom Holodnik)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore
Subject: Annexes and Routing Tables.
Message-ID: <AXuR0My00UoBI9Vm1h@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 89 16:15:20 GMT
Organization: Computation Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 36


        We seem to be running into an interesting problem here with Annexes and
large routing tables published by RIP. Recently, we allowed the NSFnet routes to
be published onto our campus backbone. The routing tables contain approximately
312 routes, taking up about as many mbufs in memory on the Annex. Here's the
output from "netstat -m:"

annex6: net -m
500/599 mbufs in use:
        45 mbufs allocated to data
        8 mbufs allocated to packet headers
        15 mbufs allocated to socket structures
        26 mbufs allocated to protocol control blocks
        312 mbufs allocated to routing table entries
        20 mbufs allocated to socket name
        2 mbufs allocated to interface address
        8 mbufs allocated to process context
        64 mbufs allocated to incoming network i/f packets
*** 2 mbufs missing ***
149 Kbytes allocated to network (83% in use)
0 requests for memory denied

I'm not sure what the upper limit on the number of mbufs is on the Annex, but my
guess is that 599 must be near the limit.

        What made us notice this is that there are occasional instances where
users receive messages to the effect that there are no available buffers in
memory for new connections.

        I'm not sure that there is much that the developers can do about this,
apart from adding more memory to the system (as a daughter board, perhaps?), if
I'm correct. Does anyone know more about this, that can verify that this is
what's happenning?

Thanks,
Tom Holodnik