[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  SDamron <sdamron at gmail dot com>
 To:  "Aaron Cherman" <aaronc at morad dot ab dot ca>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: m0n0s hanging : any progress ?
 Date:  Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:12:01 -0500
I used a muxer that used BSD as the OS in a previous life, and it
would freeze when the NAT traffic was too high.  The max number of
connections was configurable, so up-ing the number of NAT connections
fixed it.  I can not remember the manufacturer now, but will try to
provide that information to the list as soon as I can remember :o)

On 8/30/06, Aaron Cherman <aaronc at morad dot ab dot ca> wrote:
> > Or just perhaps, the traffic level is higher with these enabled and
> > because of the traffic volume, things work differently?  I would tend to
> > think that in order to definitively tag P2P as the culprit there would
> > need to be a replacement by something else to represent the appropriate
> > level of traffic in order to truly demonstrate that something else isn't
> > failing.  That isn't to say that P2P isn't in fact the culprit, only that
> > the anecdotal evidence so far doesn't seem to prove or disprove that.  If
> > your normal traffic with P2P is 20 units, then killing P2P and letting
> > traffic drop to 5 units doesn't prove anything.
> > By way of example take the case of the car which had a tendency to just
> > die at speeds over 75 mph.  Very repeatable, and absolutely no failure
> > cases below that speed.  The problem turned out to be a fuel supply issue.
> > The problem with using the speed as the culprit is that the only time the
> > fuel requirement exceeded the available flow was at 75 mph.  The problem
> > was discovered after it was determined that the same failure could be
> > produced by running in a lower gear and not allowing the transmission to
> > shift up.  It really had nothing to do with speed, only fuel flow.
>
> We don't believe this has anything to do with speed or bandwidth handling of
> the m0n0wall or any of the WAN connections in these cases (I have
> successfully passed 13+ Mbps through my m0n0s, WAN to OPT, which is far more
> than the average load).  And my current thoughts are that it also has
> nothing to do with the P2P traffic contents.  Right now I think it has to do
> with the number of live connections that exist at any given time or the
> number that are created at any given time.  It just so happens that P2P
> applications like to have lots of connections open at once and open a lot
> more quite frequently.  Of course with the testing and changes I have made
> recently I may be disproving my ideas on this as well.  haha
>
>
> Aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>


-- 
-------------------------------
"Nothing on earth can overcome an absolutely non-resistant person."