Re: New ICMP limits

2004-12-10 Thread Suleiman Souhlal
Hi, On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 09:51, Michal Mertl wrote: > What do you think? Wouldn't it be better to move all the calls to badport_bandlim() to inside icmp_error()? Bye -- Suleiman Souhlal| [EMAIL PROTECTED] The FreeBSD Project | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___

TCP simul-open not working

2004-12-10 Thread Li, Qing
TCP simultaneous open does not seem to work in the current code. I've verified the behavior through ANVL. I will file a pr unless someone has any comment on it. -- Qing ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http:/

Re: Rewritten TCP reassembly

2004-12-10 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Andre Oppermann writes: > > Regarding your measurements, did you measure the bandwidth as reported > by Netperf? Is a FreeBSD box on both sides (you mentioned Linux)? Yes, all the numbers were in Mb/sec. The sender was running linux-2.6.6 (also SMP on a single HTT P4). Drew _

Re: Rewritten TCP reassembly

2004-12-10 Thread Andre Oppermann
Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Andre Oppermann writes: > > I've totally rewritten the TCP reassembly function to be a lot more > > efficient. In tests with normal bw*delay products and packet loss > > plus severe reordering I've measured an improvment of at least 30% in > > performance. For high

Re: Rewritten TCP reassembly

2004-12-10 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Andre Oppermann writes: > I've totally rewritten the TCP reassembly function to be a lot more > efficient. In tests with normal bw*delay products and packet loss > plus severe reordering I've measured an improvment of at least 30% in > performance. For high and very high bw*delay product lin

network implementation

2004-12-10 Thread Giuliano Cardozo Medalha
Hi, I am a new FreeBSD user and I am looking for new TCP implementation in FreeBSD to test them with some logn distance networks to implement remote machining control. Its possible to use FreeBSD with the following implementations: FAST TCP TCP RENO TCP new RENO Reno 16 ? Thanks a lot. _

Rewritten TCP reassembly

2004-12-10 Thread Andre Oppermann
over lossy (wireless) and high speed links with and without packet reordering. I have the next steps already in the works which will further optimize (worst case O(windowsize/mclusters) instead of O(n)) and simplify a bit more again. The patch can be found here: http://www.nrg4u.com/freebsd/tcp_reass-

Re: Very strange kevent problem possibly to do with vinum

2004-12-10 Thread Kevin Day
On Dec 10, 2004, at 5:01 AM, Igor Sysoev wrote: On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Kevin Day wrote: I have a really really strange kevent problem(i think anyway) that has really stumped me. What does "systat -vm" show on these machines ? From one of the servers that is having problems: 1 usersLoad 0.35

Re: (review request) ipfw and ipsec processing order foroutgoingpackets

2004-12-10 Thread Andre Oppermann
Ari Suutari wrote: > > Hi, > >> With the changes you can chose whether you want to do firewallig before > >> ipsec processing or after but not both. > > > > I am unsure if I get that right but that's what the ipsec flag in > > ipfw2 is for and it is heavily used to filter ipsec encrypted traffic >

Re: Very strange kevent problem possibly to do with vinum

2004-12-10 Thread Igor Sysoev
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Kevin Day wrote: > I have a really really strange kevent problem(i think anyway) that has > really stumped me. > > Here's the scenario: > > Three mostly identical servers running 5.2.1 or 5.3 (problem exists on > both). All three running thttpd sending out large files to thousa