Ð ÐÑÐ, 05/05/2011 Ð 11:12 +0200, Alessandro Vesely ÐÐÑÐÑ: > On 04.05.2011 20:32, Nikolay S. wrote: > > Ð ÐÑÐ, 04/05/2011 Ð 20:13 +0200, Alessandro Vesely ÐÐÑÐÑ: > >> On 04.05.2011 08:14, nowhere wrote: > >>> Several packets at the beginning get lost. > >> > >> Are they always at the beginning, or does that depend on the distribution of > >> delays? > > > > Indeed. The first packet is never dropped, then comes a serie of drops > > (the number of dropped packets depends on the sending rate, i.e. testing > > with iperf on, say, 50 Mbit/s shows drops of ~800 packets) and after > > that no drops at all. Distribution and it's parameters do not matter > > except for zeroes: if there is no artificial delay, no packets are > > dropped. > > Looks like pretty reproducible. I'll have a try with your code when I get > back to my place. > > >> I see nothing wrong in it. However, I'd print out occurrences of rv < 0 > >> after recv() and look for errno==ENOBUFS in particular. It should report > >> lost packets > > > > Yes, I did it (actually this was one of the first checks). There are no > > situations when rv < 0. > > Did you check return codes from nfq_set_verdict()? If that is 0, it must be > a bug. What versions of library and kernel are you using? nfq_set_verdict() returns 32 I'm using Gentoo x86_64 v2.6.38-gentoo-r4 (2.6.38.5 + minor patches). libnetfilter_queue is 0.0.17 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
