Luigi Rizzo writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
<...>
> > I'm trying to design a new ethernet API for a firmware-based nic,
> > and I'm trying to convince a colleague that having separate
> > receive rings for small and large frames is a really good thing
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> Don Bowman writes:
>
> > I'm not sure what affect on fxp. fxp is inherently limited
> > by something internal to it, which prevents achieving
> > high packet rates. bge is the best chip, but doesn't
but you should not compa
Don Bowman writes:
> I'm not sure what affect on fxp. fxp is inherently limited
> by something internal to it, which prevents achieving
> high packet rates. bge is the best chip, but doesn't
> have the best bsd support.
>
Just curious - why is bge the best chip? Is it because
it exports
At 09:38 PM 29/02/2004, Don Bowman wrote:
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 08:44 PM 29/02/2004, Don Bowman wrote:
> >From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in
> sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers >
> > > >If you want to spend more time
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers >
>If you want to spend more time in kernel, perhaps change
>
>I might have HZ @ 2500 as well.
Hi,
Just curious as to the reasoning behind that ?
---Mike
___
[EMAIL PROT
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 08:44 PM 29/02/2004, Don Bowman wrote:
> >From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in
> sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers >
> > > >If you want to spend more time in kernel, perhaps change
> > > >
> > > >
At 08:44 PM 29/02/2004, Don Bowman wrote:
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers >
> >If you want to spend more time in kernel, perhaps change
> >
> >I might have HZ @ 2500 as well.
>
> Hi,
> Just curious as to the r
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers >
> >If you want to spend more time in kernel, perhaps change
> >
> >I might have HZ @ 2500 as well.
>
> Hi,
> Just curious as to the reasoning behind that ?
@ high packet ra
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Don Bowman wrote:
>
> > this would only allow 2 concurrent TCP sessions per unique
> > source address. Depends on the syn flood you are expecting
> > to experience. You could also use dummynet to shape syn
> > traffic to a fixed
From: Mike Silbersack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Don Bowman wrote:
>
> > You could use ipfw to limit the damage of a syn flood, e.g.
> > a keep-state rule with a limit of ~2-5 per source IP, lower the
> > timeouts, increase the hash buckets in ipfw, etc. This would
> > use a
You could use ipfw to limit the damage of a syn flood, e.g.
a keep-state rule with a limit of ~2-5 per source IP, lower the
timeouts, increase the hash buckets in ipfw, etc. This would
use a mask on src-ip of all bits.
something like:
allow tcp from any to any setup limit src-addr 2
this would only
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Don Bowman wrote:
> You could use ipfw to limit the damage of a syn flood, e.g.
> a keep-state rule with a limit of ~2-5 per source IP, lower the
> timeouts, increase the hash buckets in ipfw, etc. This would
> use a mask on src-ip of all bits.
> something like:
> allow tcp f
...
> >
> >
> > You may need to increase the MAX_RXD inside your em driver
> to e.g. 512.
>
> I didn't know if my card had a buffer bigger than the default
> 256. I can
> increase it, but I didn't know how to determine how big a MAX_RXD my
> card would support. When the system was under loa
Don Bowman wrote:
It was kindly pointed out that I didn't including the symptoms of the
problem:
Without polling on, I get 70+% interrupt load, and I get live lock.
With polling on, I start getting huge amounts of input errors, packet
loss, and general unresponsiveness to the network. The we
> It was kindly pointed out that I didn't including the symptoms of the
> problem:
>
>
> Without polling on, I get 70+% interrupt load, and I get live lock.
>
> With polling on, I start getting huge amounts of input errors, packet
> loss, and general unresponsiveness to the network. The web
>
And this was picked up in the messages log:
/kernel: stray irq 7
last message repeated 2 times
/kernel: too many stray irq 7's; not logging any more
DJ
Don Bowman wrote:
I have a machine running 4.9. P4 2.8Ghz, 800mhz bus, Intel PRO/1000
ethernet connected to a Cisco, both sides are locked to
Don Bowman wrote:
I have a machine running 4.9. P4 2.8Ghz, 800mhz bus, Intel PRO/1000
ethernet connected to a Cisco, both sides are locked to 1000/FD.
The kernel has HZ=1000, and DEVICE_POLLING, IPFW, DUMMYNET,
etc. After
only a few minutes of run time under an attack ~90,000 pps.
The atta
It was kindly pointed out that I didn't including the symptoms of the
problem:
Without polling on, I get 70+% interrupt load, and I get live lock.
With polling on, I start getting huge amounts of input errors, packet
loss, and general unresponsiveness to the network. The web server on it
doesn
> I have a machine running 4.9. P4 2.8Ghz, 800mhz bus, Intel PRO/1000
> ethernet connected to a Cisco, both sides are locked to 1000/FD.
>
> The kernel has HZ=1000, and DEVICE_POLLING, IPFW, DUMMYNET,
> etc. After
> only a few minutes of run time under an attack ~90,000 pps.
> The attack
> h
I have a machine running 4.9. P4 2.8Ghz, 800mhz bus, Intel PRO/1000
ethernet connected to a Cisco, both sides are locked to 1000/FD.
The kernel has HZ=1000, and DEVICE_POLLING, IPFW, DUMMYNET, etc. After
only a few minutes of run time under an attack ~90,000 pps. The attack
has been limited at
20 matches
Mail list logo
