Bosko Milekic writes:
> NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring
> `NMBCLUSTERS ' in your kernel configuration file, that you are
> actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be
> allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreason
You need a proper routing protocol to prevent asynchronous
routing..badbadbadbad.
*heh* Will routed let me run confederations too?
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DS
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need
> to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and
> would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care
> about balancing
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Archie Cobbs writes:
> > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days
> > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering
> > if anyone else has seen similar behavior...
> >
> > For example...
> >
> > Ye
Hi all,
I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need
to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and
would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care
about balancing based on load, simple round-robin style balancing wou
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:18:38AM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Archie Cobbs writes:
> > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days
> > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering
> > if anyone else has seen similar behavior...
> >
> > For ex
Sorry for this post my alias for netsaint had a comma (,net) in it.. I
apologize for this
Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I can compile netsaint and its plugins and everything works fine.. But
> when I go and try and compile apache 1.3.19 on my solaris 8 box with
> mod_a
At 11:38 AM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was
>terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte
>IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology
>be made on simply the number of bytes
There are two good mailling lists that I know you can find people to
help you:
www.sunmanagers.org
and unix-wiz,@ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[forgot the website for this, but you can find it easily i'm guessing.]
On 04/05/2001 12:45:18 PM, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson is quoted as
I can compile netsaint and its plugins and everything works fine.. But
when I go and try and compile apache 1.3.19 on my solaris 8 box with
mod_auth_db support It fails.
I know this is kinda off topic but I was hoping to find a Solaris admin
that can help me. Here is a that shows what I have trie
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 02:49:22AM -0500, Matthew Rezny wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea what's going on, if there's any hope of fixing this, and
>what the solution would be? Thanks.
Try http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/drivers/Intel_Gigabit/
/Jesper
--
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skri
At 01:16 PM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>> I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was
>> terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte
>> IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology
>> be made on simply the numbe
> I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was
> terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte
> IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology
> be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other
> things to c
Recieved and Confirmed..
Thanks,
Karl Clapp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
Great Works Internet
Technical Support Department
Online Help http://support.gwi.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.800.229.2096
**
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Thierry Herbelot wrote
> > The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can
> > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE
> > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which
> > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do
> > not administer). Could you s
Archie Cobbs writes:
> I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days
> ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering
> if anyone else has seen similar behavior...
>
> For example...
>
> Yesterday...
> $ netstat -m
> 461/624
Is there something broken ?
I don't get any message on most FreeBSD mailing lists, on two different
adresses
TfH
--
Thierry Herbelot
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth?
>
> I don't see why it should be that inefficient.
Because PPP encapsulation adds a lot of non-information.
> In fact, I've been
> thinking that due to header
Bernie Doehner wrote:
>
> Certain tunneling implementations use PPPoe.
I'm well aware of that. These are generally referred to as "bad" or "stupid"
tunnels, because PPPoE is such a wasteful protocol. Unless you really need
to route IPX, AppleTalk, or DECnet packets across the tunnel, in which
Tommi Harkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
>> Clearly, your packets are not getting anywhere.
>
> Traceroute & ping works fine from the box and everything to the box (still)
>works and I have checked, double checked and triple checked all settings
This sounds like a p
> Hi All
>
> I compile dummynet support into 4.2.20010309-stable, it compiled fine
> but when I try to use it I get kernel crash..
>
>
> This is what I tried
>
> >ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any
> >ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s queue 10
> >ping 203.8.14.120
>
> Fatal trap 12: page fault
21 matches
Mail list logo
