>Changing both sides to full-duplex removes to collisions.
>However: Changing only one side _always_ results in packet-loss!
It´s only when both sides transmit at once. Which is not always.
It happens almost always though.
Pete
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] m
> Repeat after me: "Collisions are normal on ethernet. 0.03% is
> nothing to be upset about."
>
> --
> "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
>
> Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Collisions are normal on ethrnet. 0.03% is nothi
> at http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/vimage/ you can find a set of patches
> against 4.8-RELEASE kernel that provide support for network stack
> cloning. The patched kernel allows multiple fully independent
> network stack instances to simultaneously coexist within a single OS
> kernel, providing a found
On Friday 30 May 2003 09:26, Erwane Breton wrote:
> > > Well, I don't see the problem.
> > >
> > > My math says that that's .03% collision rate, which is so deep in
> > > the noise as to be practically zero. What do you _think_ it
> > > should be?
> >
> > Even Mr. Inventor of the ethernet himself
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:07:07PM +0200, Marko Zec wrote:
>I plan to start porting the cloning code to -CURRENT once it becomes -STABLE
>(that means once the 5.2 gets out, I guess).
FreeBSD has a policy that all new features must be added to -CURRENT
before they can be added to -STABLE (4.x or 5.
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 06:26:56PM +0200 I heard the voice of
Erwane Breton, and lo! it spake thus:
> > >
> > > Well, I don't see the problem.
> > >
> > > My math says that that's .03% collision rate, which is so deep in the
> > > noise as to be practically zero. What do you _think_ it should be
Juli Mallett wrote:
> * Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-05-30 ]
> [ w.r.t. Re: Network stack cloning / virtualization patches ]
> > > at http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/vimage/ you can find a set of patches
> > > against 4.8-RELEASE kernel that provide support for network stack
Hi all,
Alpine4Linux is a userlevel FreeBSD 4.8 networking stack running on top of a stock
Linux kernel.
It is an implementation of an idea that I came across in a paper[1] by David Ely,
Stefan Savage
and David Wetherall.
Alpine4Linux consists of a userland server program that runs the FreeBSD
> > >
> > > Well, I don't see the problem.
> > >
> > > My math says that that's .03% collision rate, which is so
> deep in the
> > > noise as to be practically zero. What do you _think_ it
> should be?
> > >
> > Even Mr. Inventor of the ethernet himself regrets calling
> them collisions beca
Hmmm..The thumb rule I generally follow is that if there are too many
collisions, I would look at the duplex settings of the NIC and the
switch.If one of them is forced(Not auto negotiated) then the other one
turns itself into Half-duplex.The ifconfig display is also cryptic in
the sense that it do
> >
> > Well, I don't see the problem.
> >
> > My math says that that's .03% collision rate, which is so deep in the
> > noise as to be practically zero. What do you _think_ it should be?
> >
> Even Mr. Inventor of the ethernet himself regrets calling them collisions because
> that term has a b
Luigi Rizzo writes:
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:33:56AM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> ...
> > As for adding it to the server itself, its an alpha, and I don't think
> > dummnet/ipfw are production quality on alpha...
>
> actually the ipfw1/dummynet code is the same and should be working
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:33:56AM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
...
> As for adding it to the server itself, its an alpha, and I don't think
> dummnet/ipfw are production quality on alpha...
actually the ipfw1/dummynet code is the same and should be working
perfectly fine on the alpha. ipfw2 does
13 matches
Mail list logo
