On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:51:24AM -, Mark Magiera wrote:
> > Why can some NIC use polling and others not ?
> >
> > eg I went to turn on polling on my BCM5782 Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit
> >Ethernet Card. And bge(4) doesn't mention anything about polling.
> >
> > Is it a hardware feature of
> Why can some NIC use polling and others not ?
>
> eg I went to turn on polling on my BCM5782 Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit
>Ethernet Card. And bge(4) doesn't mention anything about polling.
>
> Is it a hardware feature of the NIC ?
>
> - aW
>
>From `man 4 polling`:
SUPPORTED DEVICES
Polli
Why can some NIC use polling and others not ?
eg I went to turn on polling on my BCM5782 Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit
Ethernet Card. And bge(4) doesn't mention anything about polling.
Is it a hardware feature of the NIC ?
- aW
0n Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy w
Hello,
I'm trying to load-balance and failover 2 lines using ng_fec.
This is my configuraration and schema so far:
LAN---clients_net
|
[router1][box1] -[router2]
|\---$sp-nat-1 |\---$sp-nat-2
(ISP1)
On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:02, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:50:32PM +0300, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> > Ð ÑÑ, 11/11/2004 Ð 21:24 +0100, Max Laier ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got
> > > anywhere. This time
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:50:32PM +0300, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> В чт, 11/11/2004 в 21:24 +0100, Max Laier пишет:
> > All,
> >
> > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> > This
> > time I am set to commit!
> >
> > The attached patch (http://people.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:52:49AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> > The router box is a 1.4GHz Celeron PC with an fxp(4) interface split
> > across a dozen of vlans. There is nothing special about its setup
> > except for ~250 rules
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:08:25PM -0500, Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >[ ...praise of polling(4)... ]
> >Does polling(4) increase latency? It is very imortant for router
> >that handles
On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
[ ...praise of polling(4)... ]
Does polling(4) increase latency? It is very imortant for router
that handles lots of RTP (VoIP) traffic.
Using polling does increase the latency of the tra
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:52:49AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> > The router box is a 1.4GHz Celeron PC with an fxp(4) interface split
> > across a dozen of vlans. There is nothing special about its setup
> > except for ~250 rules
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:51PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> The router box is a 1.4GHz Celeron PC with an fxp(4) interface split
> across a dozen of vlans. There is nothing special about its setup
> except for ~250 rules loaded into ipfw2. It is running 4.10-RELEASE.
> Without polling, it was
Hi there,
I can't but remind you that there's polling(4) in FreeBSD :-)
Until today, I was convinced for some obscure reason that polling(4)
was an experimental feature that might or might not work. Today I
tried it on our central router box and got astounding results.
The router box is a 1.4GH
В чт, 11/11/2004 в 21:24 +0100, Max Laier пишет:
> All,
>
> I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> This
> time I am set to commit!
>
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 impro
13 matches
Mail list logo
