On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> >It seems hard to understand how the pppoe node in the kernel can slow
> >things down.
>
> Here is an example
>
I wasn;t saying there was a problem, just that my imagination is having a
hard time coming up with an explanation..
I know that the
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 03:59:39PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> If I recall correctly, the tcpmssd
> daemon was to fix client connection issue behind the FreeBSD box, not
> directly from the FreeBSD box.
exactly. The daemon enforces an upper limit on the MSS of any packet
passing over the '
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:54:32 -0700 (PDT), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
>> wrote:
>> >> After spending a couple of hours getting it to compile, I
>> >> got Roaring
On 2002-06-24 12:56 +, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:33:05AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > I submitted some patches to use sendfile(2) that weren't accepted
> > for some reason. It's not too hard, you just have to adjust the code
> > not to close(2) the descriptors an
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> OK then if we know we have only one listenning socket,
> (I presume that's what SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT means)
> then it just uses a raw accept right?
Yes.
> The proble we are seeing is apache occasionally has a process
> freeze while it h
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >
> > for FreeBSD we seem to get this option set..
> >
> > this seems bogus..
> >
> > it assumes that multiple processes can't listen on the accept
> > at one time...
>
> That is one use for accept s
> does anyone know if FreeBSD is safe for having multiple processes do
> accept() on the same listenning socket?
I wrote a program on FreeBSD several years ago that does exactly this with
multiple rforked child processes. In fact, someone recompiled my program
on FreeBSD 4.5 last month to mo
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> for FreeBSD we seem to get this option set..
>
> this seems bogus..
>
> it assumes that multiple processes can't listen on the accept
> at one time...
That is one use for accept serialization.
However, the other reason has to do with multiple
for FreeBSD we seem to get this option set..
this seems bogus..
it assumes that multiple processes can't listen on the accept
at one time...
does anyone know if FreeBSD is safe for having multiple processes do
accept() on the same listenning socket?
My perusal of the code suggests it should
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion. If I recall correctly, the tcpmssd
daemon was to fix client connection issue behind the FreeBSD box, not
directly from the FreeBSD box. The problems we are seeing are directly on
the FreeBSD box, but only with certain DSL concentrators. Also, I thought
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:33:05AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I submitted some patches to use sendfile(2) that weren't accepted
> for some reason. It's not too hard, you just have to adjust the code
> not to close(2) the descriptors and make the mmap() function a stub
> type thing.
>
> rea
Mike Tancsa wrote:
Re DSL ...
> (Note, I have tried various MTU and MRU settings.
> Thanks for any pointers.
Perhaps you need /usr/ports/net/tcpmssd
- TCP Maximum Segment Size option corrector
I recently got DSL with Deutsche Telekom, then read the very enjoyable
http://www.ru
Looking at the man page, I'm wondering if its possible to use natd to
proxy port X coming into a jail to an IP:port that is sitting behind that
jail ...
For instance, I have two machines ... one holds the jail, the other holds
a database server ... jail is accessible from the 'Net, but the datab
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020624 10:24] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > > Cool, thttpd / others should benefit greatly then.
> >
> > The last time I checked thttpd didn't even use sendfile(2). It does
> > use accf_http(9). Mayb
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > Cool, thttpd / others should benefit greatly then.
>
> The last time I checked thttpd didn't even use sendfile(2). It does
> use accf_http(9). Maybe kqueue(2) could speed it up further.
>
> --
> Andre
I thought that thttpd
Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:17:03 -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm planning on checking in the zero copy sockets code Tuesday evening,
> > > > MDT. If t
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:17:03 -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> >
> > > I'm planning on checking in the zero copy sockets code Tuesday evening,
> > > MDT. If there are any concerns, I'm more than wi
"Kenneth D. Merry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm planning on checking in the zero copy sockets code Tuesday evening,
> MDT.
Great!
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
18 matches
Mail list logo
