> > from pinging the other side of the OC-3 or ethernet connection and
> > measuring the response time, how can I see how much latency is added by
> > increasing these buffers ?
of course the latency increase depends on how full are the buffers,
and the worst case is easier to determine by back
Mike Tancsa writes:
> > > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen from 50 to 100. and there didnt seem to be
> > > any positive results in terms of lessening the rate of
> > > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_drops.
> >
> >This is consistent with the situation where packets are received
> >at a rate faster than they
At 01:38 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>[ jumping into the middle of this discussion... ]
>
>Mike Tancsa writes:
> > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen from 50 to 100. and there didnt seem to be
> > any positive results in terms of lessening the rate of
> > net.inet.ip.intr_queue_drops.
>
>Th
[ jumping into the middle of this discussion... ]
Mike Tancsa writes:
> net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen from 50 to 100. and there didnt seem to be
> any positive results in terms of lessening the rate of
> net.inet.ip.intr_queue_drops.
This is consistent with the situation where packets are rec
Yes- I think I agree with you on this.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
> > useful a macro
>
> yes, i mean leave it as a macro which calls bcmp, and
> let the compiler handle the issue.
>
> #define IS_ETHER_BROA
>
> Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
> useful a macro
yes, i mean leave it as a macro which calls bcmp, and
let the compiler handle the issue.
#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) (!bcmp(a, "\377\377\377\377\377\377", 6))
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail t
Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
useful a macro
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> > > call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> > call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
> > comparisons with unsigned short *
> >
> > > +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> > > + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
> comparisons with unsigned short *
>
> > +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> > + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x && \
> > + ((un
I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
comparisons with unsigned short *
> +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x && \
> + ((unsigned short *)(a))[1] == 0x && \
> + ((unsign
Fix the silly warning:
Index: bridge.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/bridge.h,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 bridge.h
--- bridge.h2001/10/05 05:45:26 1.8
+++ bridge.h2001/10/11 18:11:51
@@ -92,8 +92,17 @@
Queue drops generally corresponded to bandwidth. Charting the bandwidth
going through the box and the rate at which queue drops increased certainly
seemed to correspond. I didnt run any statistical analysis, as the visual
correlation was very evident... But here is a strange result I dont qu
12 matches
Mail list logo
