Re: 3 IDE devices on Promise card + FreeBSD == not possible?
It seems Pete wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Søren Schmidt wrote: > > > No, thats not the case, the ATA driver has a built in RAID engine > > to use with Promise and HighPoint controllers. The reason it is > > like this is that it is nessesary to read the RAID config off the > > disks in a vendor specific way, and neither of cdd/vinum could do > > this when its was done. > > So, if I were to create the RAID-1 volume with atacontrol, I'm tied to > using the Promise controller? Could I move the drives to a > Highpoint-based controller or just a plain on-board ATA interface and > still have the RAID volume accessible? If I want this kind of > flexibility, should I move to Vinum? If you want to boot from the array you need to have the array config in a way that fits the controller, if thats not needed you can move around as you see fit, you can even make ATA RAID's on any ATA controller not just Promise or Highpoint as loong as you wont boot from it. I guess I should make an option to atacontrol that can convert between HPT/Promise format or maybe just silently write both to the disks ;) -Søren To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
¾ÍµÈÄãÁË£¡
Title: New Page 1 - 200M虚拟主机+50M企业邮局+顶级国际域名 只需189元/年 国际英文域名 79元/年 免费无限次解析 欢迎光临科力网络：http://www.kldns.net http://www.cnkl.net - :: JKLMailer PowerBy：www.VRMO.com QQ:5009353 :: To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Realtek
Wes Peters writes: | On Monday 10 March 2003 08:47, Doug Ambrisko wrote: | > Hmm, I thought I had said "benchmark in your environment". We have a | > closed box that is sort-of a router and a bridge. So your only inputs | > is really network traffic. That is what we tune the box for. So it | > would be interesting to see you kill it in 1s. Again our issue is PCI | > bus. | | Flood it with wire speed 64-byte packets and drive it into receive | interrupt livelock. Yup, the PCI bus is (most of) the problem here too. Can't reproduce it. Maybe they fixed it in the 8100L rev.? I tried a ping -f -s 22 to hit it with 64 byte packets. I also had traffic going to the onboard gig and it wasn't impacted (granted the source was a 100bit link tied to the gig link). I'm running variants of -stable (FreeBSD 4.7 and later) on this hardware. Doug A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
IP addresses of bridge interfaces
Greetings, I recently upgraded a FreeBSD 4.6.2 bridge to 5.0, and am having troubles with how it handles IP addresses. router | | t1 | [fxp0] FreeBSD bridge [fxp1] | switch | hosts The problem is that if the external interface is assigned an address, then hosts on the same block can't access it. Likewise if the internal interface is given an address, *only* hosts on the same block can access it! I have verified that in both cases the bridge has its default route correctly set. I won't be too suprised if this is due to screwey ISP routing, but I don't recall this ever being a problem with 4.6.2. Any tips? thanks, sh To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
long long sysctl possible?
Hi, I notice that the SYSCTL_INT() only support integer. Is there a support of things like 64-bit SYSCTL_LONGLONG()? If so, where is the sample code? Thanks. -Zhihui -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: long long sysctl possible?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:25:10PM -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote: > > I notice that the SYSCTL_INT() only support integer. Is there a support of > things like 64-bit SYSCTL_LONGLONG()? If so, where is the sample code? > Thanks. A quick look at sys/sysctl.h shows that there's a type CTLTYPE_QUAD, but not SYSCTL_QUAD or SYSCTL_INT64 macro. You could add such a macro quite easily though. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
¤é±`¥Î«~¤WºôÁÊ
Title: ±z¦³¤U¦C¯S½è¶Ü
«lÃz¡I¡I¾_¾Ù¡I¡I
±z¦³¤U¦C¯S½è¶Ü¡H
1.¨Æ·~¥ø¹Ï¤ß
2.¤£¥Ì¤ß¥¤Z
3.¤£º¡©ó²{ª¬
4.«i©ó±¹ï¥¼¨Ó
¥un±z¾Ö¦³¤W¦C¯S½è¡A§Ú̱N§K¶O°ö°V±z©Ò¦³¬ÛÃö§Þ¾¯à¤O¡A´£¨Ñ±zµ²¦Xºô¸ô¡B¹êÅé¡A¹¦ç¦í¦æ¡B
¦Y³Üª±¼Öªº³q¸ô¨Æ·~¡IÂI¿ï§Ú¡A±z´N¥i¥H±o¨ì¡I
ps:±N·|¦³±M¤H¬°±z¸Ô²Ó¸Ñ»¡³á¡I
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Realtek
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:20:36AM -0800, Doug Ambrisko wrote: >Wes Peters writes: >| Flood it with wire speed 64-byte packets and drive it into receive >| interrupt livelock. Yup, the PCI bus is (most of) the problem here too. > >Can't reproduce it. Maybe they fixed it in the 8100L rev.? > >I tried a ping -f -s 22 to hit it with 64 byte packets. I also had >traffic going to the onboard gig and it wasn't impacted (granted the >source was a 100bit link tied to the gig link). Are you sure you were generating "wire speed" packets - this is about 200,000 packets/sec at Fast speed. "ping -f" runs at whatever rate the remote end returns the packets at (or 100pps) - since it (mostly) waits for a response before sending another packet, you will never see livelock. In order to get 200,000 pps, you're going to need 5-10 hosts generating traffic, each with a good NIC and connected to the test system via a decent switch. You also need a proper network benchmarking tool - netperf (ports/netperf) or similar rather than ping. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
