On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Moving the alignment out of the drivers and into a common place seems like
a good idea, but I wonder if it should be done in the ethernet code
instead of in the ip code; won't other protocols have unaligned access
problems if the change is made exactly a
Correction to my previous message:
the crypto_proc kernel thread is not running at SWI_NET pri level,
instead it is a regular kernel thread. The impact to the user
processes is the same.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
This is a lesson I learned from working with a slow HW crypto card in
the presence of the GbE interface. Hope it is helpful to others when
they run into the same issue.
We are using a 200Mpps HW crypto card on a FreeBSD 5.3 system as a GbE
gateway. With ~700Mbps traffic inbound for encryp
Yes it was a sleep issue (and not the sleep(2) kind haha). *facepalm*
Apparently the POP uses a 2 stage authentication process. First, you use
unix/slip style authentication after which the POP then initiates CHAP.
I had specified the inccorect password for CHAP but after the initial
autentication
Doug Ambrisko wrote:
Jeff Behl writes:
| that's not the way it's supposed to work, afaik. it'd be silly to tie
| the BMC address and the OS assigned address together. you give the BMC
| an ip address via a little program that comes from IBM and this address
| is independent of the ip address tha
Check out the install guide at
http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/fbsd_installguide/index.php
it has the best step by step instructions for using userppp.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter C.
Lai
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:37 PM
To: f
Mike Silbersack wrote this message on Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:48 -0600:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >>I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment
> >>requirements? Why does arm require code changes?
> >
> >yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment
requirements? Why does arm require code changes?
yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the same.. the reason I
said the above is only for arm is the epe driver (which is only on
an ARM c
Mike Silbersack wrote this message on Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:21 -0600:
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >Ok, since you wanted to look at it more... I have a working copy of
> >making packets alignment safe for ip in p4 at as change 73150:
> >http://perforce.freebsd.org/change
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Ok, since you wanted to look at it more... I have a working copy of
making packets alignment safe for ip in p4 at as change 73150:
http://perforce.freebsd.org/changeView.cgi?CH=73150&ignore=GO%21
This currently is only for arm and I plan to now remove th
> Danny Braniss wrote:
> >>Depends on what the arps are for.
> >>
> >>On my network router (which is running 5.3), I noticed a lot of ARP messages
> >>that were not as a result of any configuration errors and was able to put a
> >>stop
> >>to it by using this control variable in sysctl:
> >>
> >
11 matches
Mail list logo
