On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Rink Springer wrote:
> Hi eri@,
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:21:54AM +0200, Rink Springer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:45:25PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:16, Rink Springer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > On my F
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Rink Springer wrote:
>
>> Hi eri@,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:21:54AM +0200, Rink Springer wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:45:25PM -0700, Garrett Coope
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov
wrote:
> On 27.12.2016 16:15, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> In it's initial state if_ipsec allows to use only one set of
>>> encryption parameters (because only one sainfo anonyumous is
>>> possible), so at this time it doesn't allow to create multipl
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to'
> M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10).
>
> Backport this exact featu
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
> E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well
> as
> E> i told you when you starte
Hello,
some time ago the FreeBSD Foundation published/approved a project for live
resizing of UFS filesystems.
Does any know if the project was successful and any outcome from it?
--
Ermal
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freeb
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Ermal Luçi ha scritto:
> > some time ago the FreeBSD Foundation published/approved a project for
> live
> > resizing of UFS filesystems.
> > Does any know if the project was successful and any outcome from it?
>
Hello,
since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons to
share the same port and possibly listening ip, you would expect if you bind
two daemon with such options to same port to see the same traffic on both!
This is not the case today.
Only multicast sockets seem to have th
Moskalenko wrote:
> Tim, you are wrong. Read what is "multicast" definition, and read how UDP
> and TCP sockets work in Linux 3.9+ kernels.
>
> Oleg .
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Erm
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons to
> > share the same port and possibly listening ip …
>
&
Also some discussions and improvements to it.
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2013-09/msg00165.html
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Well seems Dragonfly has some version of it already from commit [1].
>
> In FreeBSD there is the framework for
And some better marketing from Dragonfly about it
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?29,241283,241283 :)
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Also some discussions and improvements to it.
>
> http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2013-09/msg00165.html
>
Hello,
would you mind running a performance test with a snapshot of tomorrow from
this link http://snapshots.pfsense.org/
There are some optimizations in pfSense and it would be nicer to compare to
FreeBSD itself how it behaves.
That is before the lock changes in HEAD since its FreeBSD 8.
Regard
13 matches
Mail list logo
