this is what i get when using a USB kb:
1- bios works ok (at least from the kb point of view :-)
2- (pxe)boot works ok - i can hit the space-bar, then type boot -v
3- the boot process hangs somewhere after recognizing the em0.
all is ok with a ps/2 kb.
danny
>
> P
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
I've just setup a P75 system as a router, containing fa311 and pcnet network
cards. The fa311 is doing nat to my private network, which is served by the
pcnet card. However, I've found that it often uses 40% cpu just to send
packets from the fa311 (sis) to the pcnet (lnc) cards. natd uses 20%,
Wes Peters writes:
| On Thursday 06 March 2003 15:02, Paulo Roberto wrote:
| > --- Bram Van Dam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > cheap they are they do their job fairly well. If performance isn't
| > > an issue then go for it.
| >
| > I couldn't agree more. If you are just staying in 55 mph, you do
Wes Peters wrote:
> The problem with the RealTek chipset is that the packets have to be
> aligned on some completely stupid boundary in memory (32 bytes if memory
> serves). The driver code ends up copying the packet data to a tempory
> buffer before sending it for almost every outgoing packet, wh
Bruce Cran wrote:
> Also, I'm getting
> several thousand 'lnc0: Missed packet -- no receive buffer' messages.
> Could this be the problem, or is the system just not powerful enough do
> nat? The sis0 card is 100MBit PCI, while the lcn0 is 10MBit ISA.
The "no receive buffers available" message hap
Le Friday 07 March 2003 18:16, Doug Ambrisko a écrit :
[SNIP]
> everything at once. This illustrated the HW issue with the new D-Link 4
> port card since none of their "supported" drivers and OSes could get over
> 20Mbs. We had 100FDX links to each client and a Gig link to the server.
> FreeBSD c
Thierry Herbelot writes:
| Le Friday 07 March 2003 18:16, Doug Ambrisko a ?crit :
| > everything at once. This illustrated the HW issue with the new D-Link 4
| > port card since none of their "supported" drivers and OSes could get over
| > 20Mbs. We had 100FDX links to each client and a Gig link
I apologize for the odd subject line, and will fill in some details:
I'm exploring tweaks to various ports, for my private use. Some
of these tweaks can't be addressed via pkgtools.conf or abuse of
environment variables, and instead required actual modifications
to files.
I maintain a local CVS
> From: Brian Reichert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> I maintain a local CVS repository of FreeBSD via CVSup.
...
http://www.scriptkiddie.org/freebsd/setting_up_local_repo.html
has the details you need. It entails an env var like:
CVS_LOCAL_BRANCH_NUM=1000
and changing the style of your cvsup.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:43:37AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>And TCP/IP headers are not an even multiple of the alignment boundary
>(4 bytes, actually). So every packet the card DMA's in has to be
>copied so that access to the TCP packet contents are aligned.
Last time I looked at TCP/IP, the
Brian Reichert wrote:
> I'm exploring tweaks to various ports, for my private use. Some
> of these tweaks can't be addressed via pkgtools.conf or abuse of
> environment variables, and instead required actual modifications
> to files.
[ ... ]
> What I want is to somehow preserve my local tweaks,
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:43:37AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >And TCP/IP headers are not an even multiple of the alignment boundary
> >(4 bytes, actually). So every packet the card DMA's in has to be
> >copied so that access to the TCP packet contents are aligned.
>
> La
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:18:20PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> This doesn't directly answer your question, but it does directly
> address your problem...
Er, nope. Nice try:
> Submit your tweaks back to the port maintainer.
Um, some of these tweaks are _not_ going to be accepted, such as
comm
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:58:03PM -0500, Don Bowman wrote:
> > From: Brian Reichert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> > I maintain a local CVS repository of FreeBSD via CVSup.
> ...
>
> http://www.scriptkiddie.org/freebsd/setting_up_local_repo.html
>
> has the details you need. It entails an env
On 2003-03-07 10:58, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Cran wrote:
>> Also, I'm getting several thousand 'lnc0: Missed packet -- no
>> receive buffer' messages. Could this be the problem, or is the
>> system just not powerful enough do nat? The sis0 card is 100MBit
>> PCI, while the
Hello all,
As subj. said - does anybody work on porting v4l & (especially!)
drivers for non- bt8x based cards? Specifically saa7134 based (got one and
would rather not have to reboot to Linux to watch TV :-)
Yes, I know, the simplest answer would be "you're interested - you do" but
that'd be quite
On Friday 07 March 2003 09:16, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> Wes Peters writes:
> | On Thursday 06 March 2003 15:02, Paulo Roberto wrote:
> | > --- Bram Van Dam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > > cheap they are they do their job fairly well. If performance
> | > > isn't an issue then go for it.
> | >
> |
On Friday 07 March 2003 13:17, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> Thierry Herbelot writes:
> |
> | and the avid reader asks : so, now, what NIC are you really using ?
> | (I too have used with great pleasure quite a bunch of DLink-DFE-570),
> | and I was leaning towards using the newer DFE-580 4-port on anothe
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:51:45AM +0300, denb wrote:
> This working in FreeBSD4.7(ipfw1), but broken in FreeBSD 5.0(ipfw2).
> Why?
This is an issue triggered by compiling libalias with -O2.
Recompile libalias without -O2 and recompile natd so it binds to the
rebuild libalias.a
The problem wasn't
Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:51:45AM +0300, denb wrote:
> > This working in FreeBSD4.7(ipfw1), but broken in FreeBSD 5.0
(ipfw2).
> > Why?
>
> This is an issue triggered by compiling libalias with -O2.
> Recompile libalias without -O2 and recompile natd so it bin
Why natd don't divert packets?
*screenshot***
#ipfw add divert tcp from any to any 7
#ipfw add divert tcp from any 7 to any
#natd -v -p -a 172.16.0.102 -redirect_port tcp 172.16.0.253:7 7
In [TCP] [TCP] 172.16.0.104:49169 -> 172.16.0.102:7 aliased to
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:02:06 +0300 (MSK)
denb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why natd don't divert packets?
>
> *screenshot***
>
> #ipfw add divert tcp from any to any 7
> #ipfw add divert tcp from any 7 to any
> #natd -v -p -a 172.16.0.102 -redirect_port
Clement Laforet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:02:06 +0300 (MSK)
> denb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why natd don't divert packets?
> >
> > *screenshot***
> >
> > #ipfw add divert tcp from any to any 7
> > #ipfw add divert tcp from any 7 to
24 matches
Mail list logo
