In a message dated 10/13/01 9:33:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hmm. Well, as a person who ran gated at BEST, has hacked on gated on
> same, had to deal with BSDI and FreeBSD route table bugs, tracked down
> OSPF bugs for a friend running gated, and other
In a message dated 10/13/01 3:15:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> etinc is not recommendable.
> >>
> >
> >Everyone knows that PHK has a grudge against etinc. How childish.
>
> No, I don't have a grudge against Dennis or Etinc, I merely point
> out that somebo
In a message dated 10/13/2001 2:51:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> sbei.com has single-port PCI cards with on-board csu/dsu. I could run
4
> >or
> >> 6 of those. and they support FreeBSD.
>
> They also have a 4 port card which is supported by FreeBSD (but
In a message dated 10/13/2001 1:24:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> You tell your supplier that since the 405 is being "phased out" that he
> >> should sell you a bunch of them at closeout prices.
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps the fact that the (incredibly slow) 2501 has b
In a message dated 10/12/01 7:04:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >etinc supposedly has a prototype they are working on. I dont know the
status
> >however.
>
> they already have the 4-port PCISYNC card, but it has no integrated
> csu/dsu, requiring $2500 like this
n a message dated 10/12/2001 3:31:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> We need to accept handoff of 4 x T1 and want to do it with FreeBSD.
>
> Is there such a card with support in FreeBSD?
>
> If not, suggestions?
>
etinc supposedly has a prototype they are working o
In a message dated 10/12/01 1:08:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Consider that the Hitachi controller chip used on the WANic 405 is the
> SAME chip that Cisco uses in it's 25xx series of routers, and the Cisco
> 2501 is the most used router in the world and has the mos
In doing some kernel profiling analysis it seems that splx is taking up big
chunks of time.
The mbuf macros call splimp()..splx() explicitly..are they required at
interrupt time? Is there a higher performance way of protecting the necessary
code?
B
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
In a message dated 10/04/2001 2:30:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > All the interfaces do that. If you want to make an invisible interface,
> > > configure it with IP 0.0.0.0.
> >
> > I believe 'ifconfig foo0 up' is sufficient.
>
> Confirming data point: "ifc
I've been testing the adaptec 64044 card (if_sf driver) which is a 64bit
66Mhz 4 port ethernet. I can have come to one of two conclusions:
1) the card sucks
2) the driver sucks
or both. A 32bit Dlink 4 port card outperforms it by a wide margin, as do
32bit eepro100s. "wide margin" being defin
In a message dated 10/03/2001 8:14:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > The if_sf driver doesnt seem to initialize itself until an address is set,
> > which makes things like tcpdump, bridging and other promiscuous things
not
> > work.
>
> All the interfaces do that.
The if_sf driver doesnt seem to initialize itself until an address is set,
which makes things like tcpdump, bridging and other promiscuous things not
work.
Im sure B.P. will know where the safest place to put an sf_init to fix this
(I just stuffed one in on SIFFLAGS but it may not handle all
In a message dated 10/03/2001 3:55:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Is there a delta/changes sheet in what 4.4 offers?
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.4R/notes.html
>
> or track the CVS tree :)
>
Thanks for the pointer, and not to the other fellow ([EMA
Is there a delta/changes sheet in what 4.4 offers?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In a message dated 9/28/01 10:21:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I dont think this is "good". Back in the XT days we used to get a false
> > parity error every once on a while on an ISA card...taking the machine
> down
> > on a bit error (which XTs used to do) was
In a message dated 9/25/01 1:05:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > Well, at least we take the machine down, which is a heck of a lot
> > better than ignoring the problem, which is really all that I was
> > hoping for.
I dont think this is "good". Back in the XT days w
The developers are largely a "west-coast" crowd, i think :-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Are PIM-DM and PIM-SM supported in Freebsd? I cant find any reference in the
code.
Bryan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In a message dated 9/9/01 5:21:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The entire PCI probe/attach process is going to have to change, however I
> don't see it changing all that much. It is hard to detect devices that
> are "onboard" as opposed to being in physical slots, a
In a message dated 9/9/01 12:45:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Also, which routing specifically implements the probe calls to drivers?
> Another option is to probe the wired device first explicitly, and then
skip
>
> it in the normal probe scan. In linux there i
In a message dated 9/9/01 2:52:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : I've encountered a MB that seems to probe devices in a less than
desirable
> : order. There is an onboard fxp controller, but it scans the slots first,
> so
> : that the onboard controller is fxp1 if
I've encountered a MB that seems to probe devices in a less than desirable
order. There is an onboard fxp controller, but it scans the slots first, so
that the onboard controller is fxp1 if there is another intel card in the
box, for example.
I want to make the onboard controller fxp0 (since
In a message dated 09/03/2001 10:49:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> While not Intel, I understand the Alpha port is coming along nicely:
>
> http://www.api-networks.com/products/up1000-board.shtml
> http://www.api-networks.com/products/up1100-board.shtml
> http://ww
In a message dated 9/1/01 8:41:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> The new P4s are shipping with 800mhz RAMBUS memory modules. Wouldn't 2GB of
> 800mhz RAM go a long way to evening out the performance between a
PC/FreeBSD
> box and all but the most specialized, packet-pus
In a message dated 8/30/01 7:44:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Searching the freebsd mailinglists I have seen that you also suffering
> under this problem on 4.X. STABLE:
>
> I have isolated the problem to be due reading the time with microtime()
>
> Execute this
In a message dated 8/29/01 7:34:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> the second
> >
> > partition seems fine. Backspacing over the characters and hitting
return
> > manually and the machine boots normally. Both partitions are using the
> BTX
> > loader v1.01
> >
In a message dated 8/29/01 7:34:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I have a hard drive with 2 versions of freebsd (4.1 and 4.2) loaded on
it.
> > They boot and load ok, but when 4.1 is soft-rebooted, it stops at the
boot:
>
> > prompt and 3 strange characters are d
I have a hard drive with 2 versions of freebsd (4.1 and 4.2) loaded on it.
They boot and load ok, but when 4.1 is soft-rebooted, it stops at the boot:
prompt and 3 strange characters are displayed (not alphanumeric)...the second
partition seems fine. Backspacing over the characters and hitting
In a message dated 07/16/2001 1:54:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Maybe at some point he'll "get" that the boundry issue is a pci bus-
> mastering
> > spec issue and not a controller design flaw, as he seems to harp on this
> in
> > just about every driver?
>
>
In a message dated 07/16/2001 1:11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > How do these perform compared to the more expensive gigabit cards?
>
> Read the driver.
>
> In general, they require an extra copy because of the inability
> of the card to DMA on a reasonable bo
In a message dated 07/13/2001 12:41:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >"If you have the space, 2U is better". Why is that statement so irritating
> to
> >you. Its a fact. you agree with it. So what is the problem?
>
> The problem is that you said that 1U solutions
In a message dated 07/12/2001 6:44:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> The cooling in the 2U solution is better than the 1U...
Which is pretty much all I was recommending. Im not sure why everyone is
getting so hot under the collar. You agree with me, yet you are arguing
In a message dated 07/11/2001 7:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So, bottom line, in the end I would like a FreeBSD host that out
> of the box can get 2-4 MBytes/sec across country (or better), but
> that manages it in such a way that your standard web server running
In a message dated 07/10/2001 11:54:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Its generally a bad idea to house a multi-processor system in a 1U enclosure,
as there isnt enough cooling space and 3/4" fans are simply not powerful
enough. Unless space is ridiculously scarce, you can
In a message dated 07/10/2001 12:52:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> BSDi had no effect on ftp.freebsd.org's services and kept things
> completely unchanged there
which pretty much confirms my "no impact" statement in that area.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROT
In a message dated 07/10/2001 11:14:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "How much of this disk do you want FreeBSD to use? ___%"
>
> Was that really so difficult to imagine? Better yet, a nice graphical
> view of the disk and the 4 possible entries in the partition tab
In a message dated 07/09/2001 8:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> BSDi really did make an impact. Just because you fail to see one doesn't
mean
> it didn't happen. You might want to read the cvs-all mailing list. If
you'd
> like, I can supply you with some procmail
In a message dated 07/08/2001 9:11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:29:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Luckily, with this post to the mailing list you can join the ranks of
> doing
> > > nothing positive for the project. Cong
In a message dated 7/7/01 6:52:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> But as far as "added-value" goes, why wouldn't minimum cost be an
> added value to a potential customer? I think that the companies
> like Cheapbytes serve a social purpose in this regard.
>
If theres
In a message dated 7/6/01 4:00:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > Nothing BSDi ever did made any sense, so why does this suprise you? The
> fact
> > that BSDi didnt nothing positive for FreeBSD doesnt surprise me at all.
>
> Luckily, with this post to the mailing l
In a message dated 07/06/2001 7:42:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Nobody from BSDi has EVER given any business justification for the BSDi
> acquisition of Walnut Creek. If you look past all the "we are going out
> to do great things in the future" press release crap
In a message dated 07/03/2001 12:58:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Imagine a complete 80186 system with 512k RAM and 512K flash disk, two
> > > serial ports, 14 digital IO lines and an Ethernet in a 32 pin DIL
> package.
> > > They are planning to replace the
In a message dated 07/03/2001 11:57:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Now try to imagine a whole PC on a smaller board than a PIII CPU
> > cartridge. If you can't, get a copy of the Embedded Systems magazine
> > and look at the pictures in it.
>
> Imagine a complet
In a message dated 07/02/2001 12:16:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > You are way off on your pricing. Way off. A 633 Celeron
> > is under 50. Q1 for petes sake. The cost difference would be less than
$20.
>
> > in quantity. It would be less than $80. Q1.
>
> Th
In a message dated 6/30/01 6:17:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I think you've missed the fact that the '486 solution requires an
> > add-on board (priced at $80.) and the faster cpu solution doesnt. That
> > adds a lot of margin to get a faster MB, more than enough
In a message dated 06/30/2001 3:44:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Your premise that "embedded appliances" are somehow doomed to use
pitifully
>
> > outdated processors is simply wrong.
>
> Who said anything about pitifully outdated processors. I can buy a heck
In a message dated 06/29/2001 11:01:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Really? Have you even looked at the net4501 board which was mentioned?
> > It's
> > > a single-board computer constructed for some specific communication
> > > applications, with no VGA or k
In a message dated 6/28/01 11:16:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Really? Have you even looked at the net4501 board which was mentioned?
It's
> a single-board computer constructed for some specific communication
> applications, with no VGA or keyboard support, or spi
In a message dated 06/28/2001 12:23:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Personally I don't care much about BSD vs. GPL and am
> > annoyed by Microsoft's hypocricy (sp?). The fact that
> > they're using open source software is great.
>
> That was the point I was trying
In a message dated 06/27/2001 11:06:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> That's not really the point here, I was talking about lowest end
> hardware compared to high end CPU. If we compare with high end hardware,
> then we're talking about factor >50 faster than software...
In a message dated 06/24/2001 2:53:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And btw, hardware beats software anytime. The fastest PC processor right
> now is about the same speed as the slowest hardware.
what are the numbers? Are you accounting for the overhead in accessing the
In a message dated 6/24/01 12:33:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > A 3.x driver *could* be ported forward to 4.x and 5.x, but the
> > required changes are not trivial (newbus, SMPng...) and you'd still
> > need sample boards for testing and debugging, and docs for refe
In a message dated 06/17/2001 2:27:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 2. We're not bashing Microsoft here. We're just trying to figure
> out if their recently published comments that "Open Source is bad
> and inimical to our interests" is really just marketspeak wh
is BSDI's stack so superior to any of the other BSDs that MS would pay BSDI
for it, particularly at a time when BSDI was trying to compete with MS in the
server market? Seems like something that a bunch of BSD fanatics conjured up
after a few beers.
Bryan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL P
In a message dated 06/11/2001 7:02:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So, you are very safe in using this technique, for a variety of reasons:
>
> - The patent is almost certainly invalid, and proving this in court
> would be straightforward.
> - Compaq (owner of
In a message dated 06/09/2001 1:21:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > This thread is baffling. The bottom line is that you cant
> > trust data coming into your machine, and you have to
> > checksum it. The link level check only verifie
In a message dated 06/08/2001 1:28:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > 1) Can this be used as a 2 port gigabit NIC?
> > 2) Does this NIC have hardware failover (that is, when power is cut the
2
> > ports will be physically tied together. I dont know of any PC plug in
Looking at the description of the sysKonnect dual adapter, its not clear if
this is a real 2 port nic or that the second port is only a failover port. I
have 2 questions for anyone who has one:
1) Can this be used as a 2 port gigabit NIC?
2) Does this NIC have hardware failover (that is, when p
This thread is baffling. The bottom line is that you cant trust data coming
into your machine, and you have to checksum it. The link level check only
verifies that what was sent by the last forwarding point is the same as what
you got, but in NO WAY implies that all of the data is valid. A li
This thread is baffling. The bottom line is that you cant trust data coming
into your machine, and you have to checksum it. The link level check only
verifies that what was sent by the last forwarding point is the same as what
you got, but in NO WAY implies that all of the data is valid. A li
In a message dated 06/05/2001 10:25:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Suspect hardware problem? Of course you should! That's why memory
> systems have parity or ECC, and I/O buses are similarlly protected. At
> least on real computers.
Your view of the world is a bit
In a message dated 05/23/2001 5:04:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > Tell them to fire 20K packets/second at the linux box and watch it
crumble.
>
> > Linux has lots of little kludges to make it appear faster on some
> benchmarks,
> > but from a networking stan
Tell them to fire 20K packets/second at the linux box and watch it crumble.
Linux has lots of little kludges to make it appear faster on some benchmarks,
but from a networking standpoint it cant handle significant network loads.
Bryan
> > Hi,
> >
> > I appoligize if this is
63 matches
Mail list logo
