>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Tue Sep 24 23:30:00 UTC 2013
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Jack Johnson
>Release: 9.1-RELEASE
>Organization:
none
>Enviro
gt;Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Sat Apr 07 14:30:01 UTC 2012
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Jack
>Release:9.0-RELEASE
>Organization:
>Environment:
FreeBSD laptop.jack.com 9.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE #0: Tu
Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Sat Apr 07 13:30:00 UTC 2012
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Jack
>Release:9.0-STABLE
>Organization:
>Environment:
FreeBSD upstairs.jack.com 9.0-STABLE FreeBSD 9.0-STABLE #0 r2338
>Date-Required:
>Class: maintainer-update
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Fri Mar 16 00:40:01 UTC 2012
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Jack
>Release:9.0-STABLE
>Organization:
>Environment:
FreeBSD compiler.prdhost.com 9.0-STABLE F
When the driver is loaded it looks at the link state just once, I did this
as sort of
a compromise, it will set the state based on what it sees at that time, but
no changes
to hardware state will be noticed from that point on until interrupts are
enabled.
Regards,
Jack
2012/2/23 Коньков
The following reply was made to PR kern/165399; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Vogel, Jack"
To: "bug-follo...@freebsd.org" , "kes-...@yandex.ru"
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/165399: turn off port on SWITCH do not change status of igb
Date: W
in /etc/sysctl.conf.
Cheers,
Jack
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Iordan Iordanov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are testing FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE on a pair of machines with 10GBASE-T
> Intel x520-t2 adapters interconnected with a straight-through cat6 rj45
> cable. With mtu 1500, w
Opps, i meant kern.ipc.nmb* of course...
Jack
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Its a system resource thing, when you increase to a 9K mtu the driver will
> use 9K
> mbuf clusters, and with the queues and rings you have its unable to get
> enough.
>
> Very
enough to eliminate the throttling.
Jack
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Iordan Iordanov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I decided to send a separate message about another problem that we
> witnessed while testing 10GbaseT connectivity between a pair of Intel
> x520-t2 interconnected
