search for: gc_thresh3

Just started getting this. I tried the following by adding it to my etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh1 = 4096 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2 = 8192 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3 = 8192 net.ipv4.neigh.default.base_reachable_time = 86400 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_stale_time = 86400 That pretty much locked things up. Then I tried another googled solution: echo 256 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh1 echo 512 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh2...

Hi, all When use Centos 6.5,kernel version 2.6.431, I have continuous messages of "Neighbour table overflow" in messages. I have modified the gc_thresh1(512) , gc_thresh2 (2048) gc_thresh3 (4096) in /proc/sys/net.. path, But the messages occurs occasionally. some forum saied: They are probably realted to a kernel bug where the thresholds are in fact only half of the value that is set. See http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/170385/ --- I didn't figure it out whether it is a bug a...

...it''s pretty random. I searched the web and tried increasing my gc_cache settings, but it didn''t make a difference. echo 512 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh1 echo 2048 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh2 echo 4096 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh3 The other notable difference is that the conntrack tables are much larger than normal. `wc -l /proc/net/ip_conntrack` returns >19000 on the routers experiencing packet loss while virtually all of the other routers (not having this issue) have less than 5000 entries in ip_conntrack. I tried in...

...between 1 week and 1 month. When this is happening, routing slows to a crawl if at all. Then dies. I''ve added: # Added to stop "neighbor table overflow" messages in the kernel net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh1=512 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2=2048 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3=4096 # Added to increase IP contrack number (was getting to max) net.ipv4.ip_conntrack_max=99999 to sysctl.conf to increase the size, but this only seems to delay the problem. Any thoughts? Marco

...server, but DNS resolving stops working. # brctl showmacs br0 | wc -l 116 Their are no overflow messages from the kernel. The only errors I can find are "Metadata socket read errors" net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh1 = 128 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2 = 512 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3 = 1024 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_interval = 30 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_stale_time = 60 This is a ipv4 only TINC server. Any ideas? Kind regards and best wishes, Jelle de Jong (GNU/Linux Consultant) PowerCraft Technology I: www.powercraft.nl T: +3185 060 9913 M: +316 1218 2441

Hi, I have a P4 @ 3Ghz router running Debian. It shapes traffic ( about 500-600 classes ), about 1000 iptables rules, and it does BGP too, so i get about 1300+ routes in the routing table. The problem is the load is too high on this system. I found a solution to my problem, turning off the route cache, but i dont know how to implement it, I was wondering if anyone found a way to disable the

...> Disk identifier: 0x000efb6f - GlusterFS: 3.4.0-8.el6 - Sysctl.conf: > vm.swappiness = 0 > vm.vfs_cache_pressure = 1000 > net.core.rmem_max = 4096000 > net.core.wmem_max = 4096000 > net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2 = 2048 > net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3 = 4096 > vm.dirty_background_ratio = 1 > vm.dirty_ratio = 16 I use only default config for GlusterFS (follow http://gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Getting_started_overview). After testing between NFS client and FUSE client, I choose NFS because the performance is much...

Hi, I am getting below error on mailgw. it has 2 ethernets. eth0 is connected to internet, while eth1 is connected to LAN where there are about 300 PCs. Mar 12 09:14:00 gateway kernel: NET: 697 messages suppressed. Mar 12 09:14:00 gateway kernel: Neighbour table overflow. Mar 12 09:14:05 gateway kernel: NET: 660 messages suppressed. Mar 12 09:14:05 gateway kernel: Neighbour table overflow. Mar

...192.168.3.0/24 -j MASQUERADE Here goes the route garbage collector configuration: net.ipv4.neigh.eth3.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.neigh.eth2.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.neigh.eth1.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.neigh.eth0.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.neigh.lo.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3 = 1024 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2 = 512 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh1 = 128 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_interval = 30 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_stale_time = 60 net.ipv4.inet_peer_gc_maxtime = 120 net.ipv4.inet_peer_gc_mintime = 10 net.ipv4.route.gc_elasticity = 1 net.ipv4.route.gc_interval...

What is the cause for such a message while running kernel 2.6.1 on RH9 ? Neighbour table overflow. NET: 282 messages suppressed. Neighbour table overflow. Alex Iruc _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Hi guys, Sorry if this is a little offtopic, but I was wandering what can one do to prevent/stop arp flooding ? Thanks, Alex -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by LG-Network(http://www.lgnet.ro), and is believed to be clean.

Hi, I regularly have errors (kernel: dst cache overflow) and crash of a firewall under Linux 2.6.17 and the route patch from Julian Anastasov. With rtstat I see that the route cache size increases regularly without never decreasing. I have this parameters: fw:/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route# grep . * error_burst:1250 error_cost:250 gc_elasticity:15 gc_interval:60 gc_min_interval:0

Hi, I had successfully setup my bridge (br0) but after few minutes the br0 interface seems not working. ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 ifconfig eth5 0.0.0.0 brctl addbr br0 brctl addif br0 eth0 brctl addif br0 eth5 brctl stp br0 on I check on my system's /var/log/syslog file. It shows something strange messages as below: - Jan 2 10:44:22 fw01 kernel: ipt_tcpmss_target: bad length (64 bytes)

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-03 16:49 ------- We haven't seen this