Re: if_fxp status?
I believe the 21143 is not discontinued. It got bought by intel, so they are now manufactured as Intel chips. The Kingston kne100tx uses the now-intel-manufactured chip. They're available for <$50 or quit a bit less if you buy bulk :) (ie www.warehouse.com) They've worked great for me. A quick search on the intel web site brings up such informative links as http://developer.intel.com/design/network/products/lan/controllers/21143.htm Gilbert - Original Message - From: "Sergey Babkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Luigi Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:40 PM Subject: Re: if_fxp status? > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > Now, the 21143 (which is a pretty nice chip and has available > > documentation and a decent driver, "dc") is discontinued, but there > > are clones which work reasonably well (and are even cheaper, around > > $30 or so at compusa, i think netgear or linksys does one of these > > cards). I'd go with them. No multiport card, at least as far as i know. > > Could you tell the exact models ? I know that the SMC cards > and some others are using the same chip as well but apparently they > have some differences in some parts circuitry, so that they need > special support in the driver. So I wonder if you actually got > these Linksys and Netgear cards working with FreeBSD. > > -SB > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
submit article to sys admin magazine?
After reading Michael's post at: http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_id=2112 and exchanging a few emails with him, I've became convinced it might be reasonable to try to write an article and submit it to sys admin magazine, in re: tuning a freebsd box properly. The goal would be to demonstrate the effect tuning a box properly has on performance. The technique would be to take a stock FreeBSD box, run some benchmarks on it, then rerun those benchmarks after tuning(7) it properly. Questions: 1) Is anyone already working on something like this? If so, perhaps I should not bother :) 2) Can anyone suggest some benchmarks which would be both somewhat meaningful and relatively easy to implement/duplicate? I thought it might be good to give numbers for some kind of http, email, and disk benchmark. Looking through the ports, I saw what might look interesting were: httperf, postal, and postmark. httperf gives me some strange errors, some of which atleast seem to be caused by bugs in httperf, ie: httperf --hog --ser=test-server --wsess=100,50,0 --rate 100 --timeout 5 httperf --hog --timeout=5 --client=0/1 --server=test-server --port=80 --uri= / --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --wsess=100,50,0.000 assertion "obj->ref_count > 0" failed: file "object.c", line 179 Abort (core dumped) It doesn't core dump every time, only sometimes.. Anyone have any experience with this tool, or have a better one to suggest? postal is also an interesting program, but it doesn't seem to generate statistics. It just basically throws as much email at a server as it can. Which makes it a little harder to use as a benchmark. What seems the most obvious thing to do to get around that is to either write a new mail benchmark, or run the program for a certain length of time, and then postprocess the mail log on the server machine to see how many mails were actually delivered in what amount of time. Finally, I haven't tried postmark yet, and I remember many of the caveats that were mentioned about it on the lists the past few weeks (or however long it's been) but I thought it might be interesting because it was in that other article. This is my setup so far: test-server: P3 600 256MB ram (I can add more, I've got about 768MB sitting around to split between the server and client test boxes) Supermicro P6SBU motherboard onboard aic7890/91 Ultra2 SCSI adapter IBM DNES-309170W SA30 (8gb scsi hd, at 80MB/s, tagged queueing enabled) 3com 3c905b-tx test-client1: P3 400 192MB ram IBM-DTTA-371440 (ide hd at UDMA33) kingston 21143-based nic test-client2: Celeron 400 128MB ram Maxtor 90645D3 (ide hd at UDMA33) onboard intel pro 100+ I can probably get a hold of more client type machines too if it's needed. I would really appreciate any comments, suggestions, or feedback. I will even take kindly to well-meaning flames. Thanks, Gilbert To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
strange tcp behavior?
In the course of running some http load generators against apache on FreeBSD 4.3R, I have been seeing some strange behavior. I was finally able to find a specific concrete weirdness (atleast I think it's a weirdness). >From test-client2, I am running http_load (installed from /usr/ports/www/http_load): http_load -p 20 -seconds 1800 /home/ggong/tmp/urls The single url it is testing against is a very short page on the server. This is what I see: c206 - ggong@test-client2:~>netstat -na | grep 4670 tcp4 0 0 192.168.0.22.4670 192.168.0.10.80SYN_SENT c207 - ggong@test-client2:~>ssh root@ts "netstat -na | grep 4670" tcp4 0 0 192.168.0.10.80192.168.0.22.4670 TIME_WAIT c208 - ggong@test-client2:~>netstat -na | grep 4670 tcp4 0 0 192.168.0.22.4670 192.168.0.10.80SYN_SENT c209 - ggong@test-client2:~> If I am not mistaken, this should not happen.. I'm also relatively certain the TIME_WAIT is not from a previously closed connection.. Any ideas what might cause this, or hints on how I can further investigate this? Gilbert To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)
> It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good > training ground to gain familiarity with a OS and a chance to > communicate with developers. > > Steve B. > This is a good idea. I wouldn't mind being involved in a program like this (volunteering for QA) if something can be organized.. Gilbert > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral
I'm also interested in helping out with the installer. I have also just read Jordan's message (at http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=77877+0+archive/2000/freebsd-ha ckers/2917.freebsd-hackers as referenced in another email) and here is how I see it. #2 cannot happen without #1 happening first. Jordan outlines a number of underlying problems which simply writing a new installer, in terms of just a new frontend to what sysinstall currently does, cannot solve. Many of the underlying structures and mechanisms for distribution and packaging must be modified to resolve those problems. These problems are generally the same as the ones other people are bringing up, or are needed changes before other types of changes can be made (though some, such as adding "partition magic" style partition sizing could be added without these underlying changes). I think, from a "will be accepted by the community" perspective, what has to happen is the old installer must evolve, little by little, into something which is more modular and can be easily replaced or interfaced into by other alternate installers. As it becomes more modular, it will be easier to change some of the underlying mechanisms. As other people have said, the installer is the first exposure of new people to FreeBSD. That means it is really important, and therefore a lot of us will care about what happens to it. Major overhauls are not going to go over easily (think bikeshed, only instead of what color to paint the bikeshed, we are discussing what color to paint the large centerpiece at the entrance to the world headquarters). Gilbert - Original Message - From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Garance A Drosihn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Wes Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral > *sigh* this has gotten way off track somehow. Looking back, I'm > probably primarily to blame. > > The fact is: *I* *AM* interested in replacing or helping out with > an effort to replace/improve sysinstall. However, there are two > critical things I must understand if I am to do anything truely > productive along this line: > > 1. Should sysinstall be fixed or replaced. > 2. What needs done to fix or improve sysinstall. > > Now, I've gotten several excellent suggestions with regard to #2. > If any of my replies to these seem like arguments, then that's > just a part of my inability to communicate, as what I'm trying to > do is *understand* what exactly needs done. If I only change what > *I* want, it might not be terribly useful overall (as can be seen > by my divergence from other's opinions) You make an excellent point > of this in your second paragraph below. > > What I was really interested in getting answered was #1, as it > was suggested by Terry Lambert that "sysinstall must go" (don't > remember his exact words) I have no desire to start repairing > something if a complete replacement is in order. > > The fact of the matter is that I don't understand the problem > enough to fix it. It may seem strange to people that I'm more > interested in understanding this problem than in fixing problems > that I already understand. Well, I always have been a little > strange ... > > Personally, I would appreciate it if folks would *not* back > off from this conversation, since I'm acutally beginning to > understand, thanks to the tireless efforts of many who already > understand. > > -Bill > > Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > The main problem I have seen with this discussion is that the > > current partitioning program works well for you (Bill). Every > > time anyone suggests something, you reply that it seems frivolous > > to you, or that there is no other installer that you personally > > have used which does a better job. We're not trying to suggest > > things to make partitioning easier for YOU, we're suggesting > > things which would make it nicer/easier/friendlier for US, or > > people that we deal with. > > > > Pretty much every time I have used the disk-partitioning software > > for freebsd I have hated it. The *reason* I hate it changes from > > run-to-run, but I've never been particularly happy with it. It > > is clear that you've had better luck with it than I have. I think > > I'll just leave it at that, instead of trying to interest you in > > making some changes to it. I do not mean this as a sarcastic jab, > > I am just making the observation that the current setup seems to > > work well for you, and thus you're not going to be as interested > > in changing it as we might have hoped. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
