Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.bri.connect.com.au!fjholden.OntheNet.com.au!not-for-mail From: Tony Griffiths <tonyg@OntheNet.com.au> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: /kernel: in_rtqtimo: adjusted rtq_reallyold to 2400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:10:25 +1000 Organization: On the Net (ISP on the Gold Coast, Australia) Lines: 39 Message-ID: <33557881.172E@OntheNet.com.au> References: <michelle-1404972141270001@monalisa.primelogic.com> Reply-To: tonyg@OntheNet.com.au NNTP-Posting-Host: swanee.nt.com.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) To: Michelle Brownsworth <michelle@primelogic.com> Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:39174 Michelle Brownsworth wrote: > > That's the first cryptic message that appears on the console and in > /var/log/messages, and others follow with decreasing values. This kernel > message is obviously an advisory that something is amiss, in the kernel's > opinion, making it necessary to do an adjustment to compensate, since the > dunderhead system administrator hasn't done it. OK, you made me curious enough to go and take a peek at the code. This message originates from module ".../netinet/in_rmx.c" routine in_rtqtimo() which gets run every 10 minutes (timeout() @ 600 seconds). Essentially, it appears to be trying to flush the routing cache of stale entries (ie. those that have been there for 'rtq_reallyold' seconds but havn't been used!). > > I seem to recall that in_rtqtimo is a function in the routing table > routines, but I can't put my hands on anything that will shed some light > on what's wrong, and what I need to do to correct it. Nothing... It's simply an advisory that the value of rtq_reallyold is being reduced by 1/3 of it's current value. It starts at 60 * 60 (3600 seconds) so the first reduction reduces it to 2400 seconds and the next to 1600, etc. I believe that it keeps doing this until it reaches the minimum value which is 10 seconds. The idea is to keep the routing cache to 128 entries or less. If no entries are being flushed, then the value of rtq_reallyold keeps getting reduced to try and force the issue! > > Anyone having a handle on this esoterica who could point me in the right > direction would receive a heaping helping of appreciation. My advise is... "DON'T PANIC!" I've been ignoring this message for several years now and nothing untoward has happened to my routing tables. Now that I've read the code, I can sleep even easier at night. ;-) Regards, Tony