Re: decreasing TIME_WAIT duration(T/TCP?)

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >Hello! > >It is important to me to have duration of TIME_WAIT state of TCP >connection as short time as possible. Tweak net.inet.tcp.msl, which specifies the 2MSL timeout. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe free

Re: Fix icmp_reflect if no addresses are configured

On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 04:11:14PM +, Dima Dorfman wrote: > Please review the following change, from NetBSD: > > In icmp_reflect(): If the packet was not addressed to us and was > received on an interface without an IP address, try to find a > non-loopback AF_INET address to

Fix icmp_reflect if no addresses are configured

Please review the following change, from NetBSD: In icmp_reflect(): If the packet was not addressed to us and was received on an interface without an IP address, try to find a non-loopback AF_INET address to use. If that fails, drop it. Previously, we used the add

decreasing TIME_WAIT duration(T/TCP?)

Hello! It is important to me to have duration of TIME_WAIT state of TCP connection as short time as possible. It is because Server identifies its Clients by C_IP:C_PORT(which permanent for one Client). In FreeBSD 3.4 I have been edited netinet sources to decrease interval for TIME_WAIT -only(

Re: Maximum throughput of Intel Pro 100/S NIC?

> >I have got 96% of 100Mbps under real production load. > > Wouldn't the TCP/IP overhead + ethernet design (collisions) reduce this > figure to more like 70Mbs max in the real world? As has been pointed out, a lot of people run full duplex these days. With FD ethernet, the maximum achievable b

Re: Maximum throughput of Intel Pro 100/S NIC?

Hi Bill, > > >I have got 96% of 100Mbps under real production load. > > > > Wouldn't the TCP/IP overhead + ethernet design (collisions) reduce > >figure to more like 70Mbs max in the real world? > >1) when people refer to getting 96% of X Mbps, they're referring to >ethernet frames, not cute

Re: Maximum throughput of Intel Pro 100/S NIC?

On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 09:07:50AM +, Thor Legvold wrote: > >I have got 96% of 100Mbps under real production load. > > Wouldn't the TCP/IP overhead + ethernet design (collisions) reduce this > figure to more like 70Mbs max in the real world? 1) when people refer to getting 96% of X Mbps, t

Re: Maximum throughput of Intel Pro 100/S NIC?

"Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did wax gregarious and thus spake: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hi, > > > > I have an Intel Pro 100/S NIC on FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE connected to a >Cisco > > Catalyst 3500XL switch at 100Mbps, full-duplex but I only get 15.6Mbps > > throughput.