Socket leak (Was: Re: What triggers "No Buffer Space) Available"?

[Marc G. Fournier]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Thursday, May 03, 2007 18:26:30 -0700 Matthew Dillon 
<dillon at apollo.backplane.com> wrote:


>     One thing you can do is drop into single user mode... kill all the
>     processes on the system, and see if the sockets are recovered.  That
>     will give you a good idea as to whether it is a real leak or whether
>     some process is directly or indirectly (by not draining a unix domain
>     socket on which other sockets are being transfered) holding onto the
>     socket.

*groan*  why couldn't this be happening on a server that I have better remote 
access to? :(

But, based on your explanation(s) above ... if I kill off all of the jail(s) on 
the machine, so that there are minimal processes running, shouldn't I see a 
significant drop in the number of sockets in use as well?  or is there 
something special about single user mode vs just killing off all 'extra 
processes'?

- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy at hub.org                              MSN . scrappy at hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFGOpeM4QvfyHIvDvMRAoppAJ9SNmIi+i2vDXEZzrpaVe74a3uKyQCfeMY7
z3lFWXEo111CL5peXvqqsCQ=
=qxmO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----