enormous CPU load on 4.10 machine

hello, i've made a simple script for correcting about 2000 user files on 30 routers from the database. must notice that it works fine, but only on 5.2 Machines. on 4.8 4.9 and 4.10 it "eats" all the cpu resources. On both(4.10 an 5.2.1) machines there is similar count of IPFW rules and both FreeB

kernel arp log message

hi, i have a problem in a FreeBSD server, Kernel message show this message; arp: [ip redhat firewall gateway] moved from [1st nic redhat firewall gateway] to [2nd redhat firewall gateway] on fxp0 arp: [ip redhat firewall gateway] moved from [2nd nic redhat firewall gateway] to [1st redhat firew

Re: modularization

At Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:23:17 +0200, Max Laier wrote: > Given the additional locking requirements and the additional checks, lookups > and function calls I hardly believe that it is a good idea. There might be > protocols that are easily plugged, but you can certainly do them at the > netgraph lay

Association Problem with Multiple APs (PRISM)

Hello list, I am running the 4.9 release of FreeBSD on an imbedded net4521 box and my problem is: Recently a wireless ISP put up an antenna in our apartment complex. Now for some reason, my 4521 (and my iBook with regular AirPort, and BSD based??) favor the wireless ISP's connection over my own L

(forw) Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network accounting with aliases.

I submitted a PR with a patch, but I think there may be a better fix, any ideas? -Alfred - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network

Re: modularization

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:30:43PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >< ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > >>Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: > >>IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. > >>Just about everything as modules. > > > >It is not generally regarded

Re: modularization

Garrett Wollman wrote: < said: Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as modules. It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial boundaries between (e.g.) IP and TCP. However from the success of the O

Re: modularization

< said: > Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: > IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. > Just about everything as modules. It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial boundaries between (e.g.) IP and TCP. -GAWollman __

Re: modularization

On Wednesday 06 October 2004 17:19, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Hi, > are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface > modules)? > Would it be difficult to modularize it? One problem you will hit here, is that you will have to do a lot of additional locking for structures

Re: modularization

Hi, Roman Kurakin wrote: are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? You mean smth like (device driver)+ng_cisco+ng_iface or what? Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as modules. Bye,

Re: modularization

Hi, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: Hi, are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? You mean smth like (device driver)+ng_cisco+ng_iface or what? rik Would it be difficult to modularize it? I am also interested in your opinion about it: Does it make sense to modular

modularization

Hi, are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? Would it be difficult to modularize it? I am also interested in your opinion about it: Does it make sense to modularize the netstack? Why would a monolithic/modular netstack be better? We at Haiku are inclined