| 1 |
Am Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:08:31 -0700 |
| 2 |
schrieb Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> [...] |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> It looks like the TCP Queuing spike itself was due to imapproxy |
| 9 |
> >> which I've now disabled. I'll post more info as I gather it. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > imapproxy was clearly affecting the TCP Queuing graph in munin but I |
| 13 |
> > still ended up with a massive TCP Queuing spike today and |
| 14 |
> > corresponding http response time issues long after I disabled |
| 15 |
> > imapproxy. Graph attached. I'm puzzled. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I just remembered that our AT&T modem/router does not respond to |
| 19 |
> pings. My solution is to move PPPoE off of that device and onto my |
| 20 |
> Gentoo router so that pings pass through the AT&T device to the Gentoo |
| 21 |
> router but I haven't done that yet as I want to be on-site for it. |
| 22 |
> Could that behavior somehow be contributing to this problem? There |
| 23 |
> does seem to be a clear correlation between user activity at that |
| 24 |
> location and the bad server behavior. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If that device behaves badly in router mode by blocking just all icmp |
| 27 |
traffic instead of only icmp-echo-req, this is a good idea. You may |
| 28 |
want to bug AT&T about this problem then. It should really not block |
| 29 |
related icmp traffic. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Kai |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives