too much traffic on lo0

[Tony Walton]

Tom wrote:

> I have too much traffic go through lo0 (loopback interface)

What do you mean "too much traffic"? Is this causing you a problem, and
is so, what?

on Sun

> Ultra 2, Solaris 7. When I did "snoop", it doesn't show too much
> traffic.

It didn't show *any* traffic on the loopback interface. snoop doesn't
look at lo0.

> Also I can't do "snoop -d lo0".

Correct.

>
> Any idea what caused the problem?

What *is* the problem?
--
Tony

[Tom]

> > I have too much traffic go through lo0 (loopback interface) on Sun

> > Ultra 2, Solaris 7.

>
> What problem is this causing you?

It uses too much CPU, and the system is very slow.

>

> > When I did "snoop", it doesn't show too much
> > traffic.
> > Also I can't do "snoop -d lo0".

>
> You can't snoop the loopback.
>

> > The following is the output of "netstat".
> > # netstat -I lo0 10
> > input lo0 output input (Total) output
> > packets errs packets errs colls packets errs packets errs colls
> > 38914926 0 38914926 0 0 39896977 0 39972520 0 0
> > 11626 0 11626 0 0 11628 0 11627 0 0
> > 11563 0 11563 0 0 11565 0 11565 0 0
> > 11577 0 11577 0 0 11579 0 11580 0 0
> >
> > Any idea what caused the problem?

>
> You didn't say what the problem was.
>

> > Does that mean motherboard of my Ultra 2 have some problem?

>
> No.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <2a413b1f.0307250818.2e88962b@posting.google.com >,
[email]tom@hottestnet.com[/email] (Tom) writes:

>> > I have too much traffic go through lo0 (loopback interface) on Sun
>> > Ultra 2, Solaris 7.

>>
>> What problem is this causing you?

>
> It uses too much CPU, and the system is very slow.

Well, start with 'prstat' and see what's running on the system.
If you have 'top' correctly built for your release and patch level,
you could try that too.

--
Andrew Gabriel

[Thomas H Jones II]

In article <2a413b1f.0307250818.2e88962b@posting.google.com >,
Tom <tom@hottestnet.com> wrote:

>> > I have too much traffic go through lo0 (loopback interface) on Sun
>> > Ultra 2, Solaris 7.

>>
>> What problem is this causing you?

>
>It uses too much CPU, and the system is very slow.

>>

>> > The following is the output of "netstat".
>> > # netstat -I lo0 10
>> > input lo0 output input (Total) output
>> > packets errs packets errs colls packets errs packets errs colls
>> > 38914926 0 38914926 0 0 39896977 0 39972520 0 0
>> > 11626 0 11626 0 0 11628 0 11627 0 0
>> > 11563 0 11563 0 0 11565 0 11565 0 0
>> > 11577 0 11577 0 0 11579 0 11580 0 0
>> >
>> > Any idea what caused the problem?

>>
>> You didn't say what the problem was.
>>

>> > Does that mean motherboard of my Ultra 2 have some problem?

>>
>> No.

You know, I looked for a posting date of 04/01, but it just wasnt there...

-tom

--

"You can only be -so- accurate with a claw-hammer." --me

[norm]

[email]tom@hottestnet.com[/email] (Tom) wrote in message news:<2a413b1f.0307241818.1bb18c36@posting.google. com>...

> I have too much traffic go through lo0 (loopback interface) on Sun
> Ultra 2, Solaris 7. When I did "snoop", it doesn't show too much
> traffic.
> Also I can't do "snoop -d lo0".
> The following is the output of "netstat".
> # netstat -I lo0 10
> input lo0 output input (Total) output
> packets errs packets errs colls packets errs packets errs colls
> 38914926 0 38914926 0 0 39896977 0 39972520 0 0
> 11626 0 11626 0 0 11628 0 11627 0 0
> 11563 0 11563 0 0 11565 0 11565 0 0
> 11577 0 11577 0 0 11579 0 11580 0 0
>
> Any idea what caused the problem?
> Does that mean motherboard of my Ultra 2 have some problem?
>
>
> Thanks.

This is most likely IPC. To get a detailed look at what your
box is doing you can get a tool at

[url]http://www.sunperf.com/perfmontools.html[/url]

You might also look at nestat -an and see what connections are
active on the loopback.

Norm.

[Philip Brown]

On 28 Jul 2003 12:15:30 -0700, [email]norm@sunperf.com[/email] wrote:

>This is most likely IPC. To get a detailed look at what your
>box is doing you can get a tool at
>
>[url]http://www.sunperf.com/perfmontools.html[/url]

all those text ads are damn annoying.
makes it less readable, and generally detracts from the credibility of your
site.
couldnt you guys stick to one, or maybe just two, ads per page, instead of
14? or make that, 14x3 ?



--
[url]http://www.blastwave.org/[/url] for solaris pre-packaged binaries with pkg-get
Organized by the author of pkg-get
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
S.1618 [url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D[/url]
[url]http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html[/url]

[norm]

phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown) wrote in message news:<slrnbic5ck.1vee.phil+s3@bolthole.com>...

> On 28 Jul 2003 12:15:30 -0700, [email]norm@sunperf.com[/email] wrote:

> >This is most likely IPC. To get a detailed look at what your
> >box is doing you can get a tool at
> >
> >[url]http://www.sunperf.com/perfmontools.html[/url]

>
> all those text ads are damn annoying.
> makes it less readable, and generally detracts from the credibility of your
> site.
> couldnt you guys stick to one, or maybe just two, ads per page, instead of
> 14? or make that, 14x3 ?

Thank you for your vauable input. I think the text ads are
better than the banner ads, and pop-ups. So I considered it
a compromise to be the least offensive ad. I suppose a frames
approach would be more asthetically pleasing, but not all
browsers support frames. I suppose I should not inquire as
to your feelings on huge flash introductions.

I share your lament. It is really annoying when sites seem
to have excessive clutter, and bandwidth hogging animated
graphics.

Thank you,

Norm.