Re: alternative routing - deadlock?

2006-02-03 Thread Dinesh Nair
On 02/03/06 21:32 D said the following: on freebsd box such a simple situation(see below) seems to be pretty complicated: ISP1[10.10.10.1][1Mbps]<>[ME-em0][10.10.10.10] ISP2[11.11.11.1][8Mbps]-->[ME-em1][11.11.11.11] default route 10.10.10.1 any traff

Re: re0: 2 link states coalesced.

2006-02-03 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2006-02-03 04:22, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2006-01-30 11:39, Julien Gabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I filled one a year ago, for the very same problem (encountered for two > >>> years now). See Problem Report kern/80005 for more information. I > >>> think that a

freebsd 6.0 network card / route fail over question

2006-02-03 Thread Matthew Lineen
Hello, I'm trying to workout the specifics of NIC/route fail over on FreeBSD 6.0 and hoped someone here could point me in the right direction. We have 2 ServerIron load balancers and each of our application servers is plugged into both LBs. So, for example, an app server would have the foll

Re: Ftpd problems

2006-02-03 Thread Yar Tikhiy
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 04:56:26PM +0200, Iassen Anadoliev wrote: > Yar Tikhiy writes: > >> > >>We seem to have got a bug in sendfile(2). Besides bin/89100, there > >>is kern/92243 on it. The problem is rather unpleasant and it's in > >>the kernel, not in ftpd(8). > > > >Would you mind trying the

alternative routing - deadlock?

2006-02-03 Thread D
on freebsd box such a simple situation(see below) seems to be pretty complicated: ISP1[10.10.10.1][1Mbps]<>[ME-em0][10.10.10.10] ISP2[11.11.11.1][8Mbps]-->[ME-em1][11.11.11.11] default route 10.10.10.1 any traffic "from ME to ISP2" will fail or will be re

Re: re0: 2 link states coalesced.

2006-02-03 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2006-02-03 11:09, Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:22:04AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-01-30 11:39, Julien Gabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't really know if there is a PCI or PCMCIA version of this adapter, >>> sorry. >> >> I have a PCI

Re: offloading ip checksum calculation to the NIC

2006-02-03 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:30:54AM -0800, kamal kc wrote: k> so what do i need to do if i don't want to calculate k> the ip checksum myself ? k> k> right now i am taking off packet from the kernel k> and modifying some of the data content, and k> outputting to the IFQ_HANDOFF myself. and i k>

Re: offloading ip checksum calculation to the NIC

2006-02-03 Thread kamal kc
--- Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:20:46PM -0800, kamal kc wrote: > k> i want to offload ip checksum calculation to the NIC. > k> I use 3Com 3c905B-TX NIC cards. > k> > k> I found that there are variables::>> > k> > k> intcsum_flags;

Re: re0: 2 link states coalesced.

2006-02-03 Thread Emmanuel Duros
We got recently a feedback from realtek on our problem. We told them the link status was constantly "no carrier" (FreeBSD) and "cable disconnected" (windows) when the card was connected directly to some specific equipment (no switch nor hub in between). We did not have the pb when using an other NI

Re: offloading ip checksum calculation to the NIC

2006-02-03 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:20:46PM -0800, kamal kc wrote: k> i want to offload ip checksum calculation to the NIC. k> I use 3Com 3c905B-TX NIC cards. k> k> I found that there are variables::>> k> k> int csum_flags; /* flags regarding checksum */ k> int csum_data;

Re: re0: 2 link states coalesced.

2006-02-03 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:22:04AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: G> On 2006-01-30 11:39, Julien Gabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: G> >>> I filled one a year ago, for the very same problem (encountered for two G> >>> years now). See Problem Report kern/80005 for more information. I G> >>> think t