On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 22:34, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Do you really mean poll-based, or DMA based? Traditionally polling is
> evil CPU wise... but there could be reasons why polling is better if
> that is the only thing you are doing. Possibly PC DMA is probably so old
> and crappy that it's not wor
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 22:34, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> Do you really mean poll-based, or DMA based? Traditionally polling is
> evil CPU wise... but there could be reasons why polling is better if
> that is the only thing you are doing. Possibly PC DMA is probably so old
> and crappy that it's not wor
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 16:46, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:42, Simon Allard wrote:
> > I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
> > moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
>
> You should be using NICs with a poll-based driver, as opposed to an
>
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 16:46, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:42, Simon Allard wrote:
> > I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
> > moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
>
> You should be using NICs with a poll-based driver, as opposed to an
>
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:42, Simon Allard wrote:
> I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
> moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
You should be using NICs with a poll-based driver, as opposed to an
interrupt-based driver. This will preempt the kernel less often
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:42, Simon Allard wrote:
> I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
> moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
You should be using NICs with a poll-based driver, as opposed to an
interrupt-based driver. This will preempt the kernel less often
I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
What kernel are you using? I have tried 2.4.19 and 2.4.22.
> I'm running the same scenario here on a ppro 200 except that I'm using
> 2x3c905btxm cards for the briding instead of th
I have replaced NIC's as I thought it might of been the drives also. I
moved to the eepro100 cards. Same problem.
What kernel are you using? I have tried 2.4.19 and 2.4.22.
> I'm running the same scenario here on a ppro 200 except that I'm using
> 2x3c905btxm cards for the briding instead of th
I don't know is it make any sense but I've compiled
bridge as integrated, not as module.
And I don't state any line in "interfaces" file about
bridged interfaces; Only br0 exists.
Also I'm using br0 as external interface.
gw11:/etc#
gw11:/etc# cat network/interfaces
# /etc/
I don't know is it make any sense but I've compiled
bridge as integrated, not as module.
And I don't state any line in "interfaces" file about
bridged interfaces; Only br0 exists.
Also I'm using br0 as external interface.
gw11:/etc#
gw11:/etc# cat network/interfaces
# /etc/
Hi!
I don't think that I could address your problem, but in Debian there is a
package called bridge-utils that allows easy bridge creation.
One of my systems uses it for a user-mode-linux installation between tap0
and eth2:
-
auto tap0
iface tap0 inet manual
tunctl_user uml-n
Hi!
I don't think that I could address your problem, but in Debian there is a
package called bridge-utils that allows easy bridge creation.
One of my systems uses it for a user-mode-linux installation between tap0
and eth2:
-
auto tap0
iface tap0 inet manual
tunctl_user uml-n
No. None what so ever.
ipfiler/iptables modules are not even loaded
Its a pretty clean running box.
> Any firewall rules or logging mechanism?
>
> El mar, 18-11-2003 a las 15:12, Simon Allard escribió:
> > I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
> > devices toge
No. None what so ever.
ipfiler/iptables modules are not even loaded
Its a pretty clean running box.
> Any firewall rules or logging mechanism?
>
> El mar, 18-11-2003 a las 15:12, Simon Allard escribió:
> > I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
> > devices toge
Any firewall rules or logging mechanism?
El mar, 18-11-2003 a las 15:12, Simon Allard escribió:
> I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
> devices together using 3Com PCI 3c982 Dual Port cards. (3c59x).
>
> What I am seeing is that the module itself uses 30% of C
Any firewall rules or logging mechanism?
El mar, 18-11-2003 a las 15:12, Simon Allard escribió:
> I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
> devices together using 3Com PCI 3c982 Dual Port cards. (3c59x).
>
> What I am seeing is that the module itself uses 30% of C
I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
devices together using 3Com PCI 3c982 Dual Port cards. (3c59x).
What I am seeing is that the module itself uses 30% of CPU to handle just
10mbit both ways (20mbit total). ~6000ps total. From what I have read on
the bridge hom
I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
devices together using 3Com PCI 3c982 Dual Port cards. (3c59x).
What I am seeing is that the module itself uses 30% of CPU to handle just
10mbit both ways (20mbit total). ~6000ps total. From what I have read on
the bridge hom
18 matches
Mail list logo
