Re: major bge(4) performance problem
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:47:19PM +0100, Laurent Frigault wrote: > Hi, > > We are experiencing a problem with BCM5721 bge interfaces, which seems to > be able to receive at almost 1Gbps but can only transmit at < 540Mbps. > > It is the exactly same problem describes at > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2007-June/014373.html > Is there any patch/fix available for this driver ? > > Unfortunatly our server has no more slot available so we can't forget the bge > interfaces and add an em interface. > > I can run tests on a spare server if needed (same hardware). Hello, can you test patch from Igor Sysoev with recommended tunables? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2007-November/015951.html Also comments from Bruce Evans: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2007-November/015954.html I have same problem with bge, but currently can't test this patch on production system. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks
Alexander Leidinger ha scritto: To achieve this goal we have 2 possibilities, either we install everything into LINUXBASE and install a wrapper in LOCALBASE, or we install everything in a safe location in LOCALBASE. The first part requires that the maintainers of the linux program play some tricks in their port (plist and/or Makfile). If they fail to do this, it increases the load of portmgr from time to time (build failures on the build cluster). In the second case (install into a safe place in LOCALBASE), portmgr is out of the loop, as if something goes wrong, the port maintainer and/or emulation@ is asked for help, as it is a bug of the port. I admit that probably I'm using only one or two linux applications and I've never created a linux port, but I think the right way is the former possibility, the latter seems a hack to me. It could be harder for unexperienced maintainers, but once we defined the correct way to add a wrapper in LOCALBASE (and put it in the porter's handbook), I think the work for maintainers/committers should be quite easy. What are the other issues that make the former solution so difficult? -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks
Quoting Alex Dupre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:52:15 +0100):
Alexander Leidinger ha scritto:
To achieve this goal we have 2 possibilities, either we install
everything into LINUXBASE and install a wrapper in LOCALBASE, or we
install everything in a safe location in LOCALBASE. The first part
requires that the maintainers of the linux program play some
tricks in their port (plist and/or Makfile). If they fail to do
this, it increases the load of portmgr from time to time (build
failures on the build cluster). In the second case (install into a
safe place in LOCALBASE), portmgr is out of the loop, as if
something goes wrong, the port maintainer and/or emulation@ is
asked for help, as it is a bug of the port.
I admit that probably I'm using only one or two linux applications and
I've never created a linux port, but I think the right way is the
former possibility, the latter seems a hack to me. It could be harder
for unexperienced maintainers, but once we defined the correct way to
add a wrapper in LOCALBASE (and put it in the porter's handbook), I
think the work for maintainers/committers should be quite easy. What
are the other issues that make the former solution so difficult?
Multiple prefixes in one port (pkg-plist).
I know it is possible. I know that several native ports use it. I know
how the linux ports looked before I cleaned up several bad things in
most of them.
We (Boris and me) managed to refine the linux-rpm bits into a .mk
which allows more easy porting, but I know the complexity behind and
sometimes I just wonder how some linux port managed to not produce a
hell of a lot of support requests. It allows to produce nice and easy
(sort of) installation of rpms into LINUXBASE. Judging from the
quality of most of the linux ports I've seen, I think requiring
multiple prefixes in the pkg-plist calls for more problems in the
generation of linux ports.
On the other hand, if you can come up with some easy to use macros for
a .mk file which hides everything (WRAPPER_SBIN=${FILESDIR}/foobar, or
whatever), I happily review them and share my opinion about them based
upon my experience with the linux ports. Take maybe a game (one with
average porting complexity), and maybe acroread as an example which
shows how to use them
Bye,
Alexander.
--
/Earth is 98% full ... please delete anyone you can.
http://www.Leidinger.netAlexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
netcat trouble on timeout
hi iam use nc on FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT trouble in -t(timeout) option, absentia full break session (very need) examples: # time nc -w 1 -z 192.168.44.14 443 real1m15.002s user0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s # time nc -w 1 -z google.com 80 Connection to google.com 80 port [tcp/http] succeeded! real0m0.385s user0m0.000s sys 0m0.007s any solution /Vladimir Ermakov ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks
Alex Dupre wrote: Alexander Leidinger ha scritto: To achieve this goal we have 2 possibilities, either we install everything into LINUXBASE and install a wrapper in LOCALBASE, or we install everything in a safe location in LOCALBASE. The first part requires that the maintainers of the linux program play some tricks in their port (plist and/or Makfile). If they fail to do this, it increases the load of portmgr from time to time (build failures on the build cluster). In the second case (install into a safe place in LOCALBASE), portmgr is out of the loop, as if something goes wrong, the port maintainer and/or emulation@ is asked for help, as it is a bug of the port. I admit that probably I'm using only one or two linux applications and I've never created a linux port, but I think the right way is the former possibility, the latter seems a hack to me. It could be harder for unexperienced maintainers, but once we defined the correct way to add a wrapper in LOCALBASE (and put it in the porter's handbook), I think the work for maintainers/committers should be quite easy. What are the other issues that make the former solution so difficult? Are you saying that adding a wrapper to every single linux app is the right way to go? And just putting things in their defined spots (as you've been doing since yoiu began using Unix, sticking libs in /usr/lib and executablees in /usr/bin, and addons in the same spots in /usr/local) is wrong? I am saying, you have a new exec type, stick those in their new spots, then they all run without any wrappers, just working as things have been working since unix began. I guess I might be wrong, but I have to say, wrapping everything really does seem to me to be the hack. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks
Chuck Robey wrote: > I guess I might be wrong, but I have to say, wrapping everything really > does seem to me to be the hack. Call it a wrapper, call it a symlink, but it seems to me that you don't like linux libs in LOCALBASE *and* you don't like executable references in LOCALBASE (and these are the only two possibilities exposed by Alexander). I prefer the wrapper/symlink, because I think all linux stuff should be in /compat/linux. What do you propose, instead? -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
