Hi,
Some time ago (Oct 2004) there was some talk of implementing
IP_SENDIF, a search of the mailing list turns up nothing since then.
Did anything ever happen with this?
thanks,
dave c
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
I use netperf which is a pure network traffic tester I also just use
basic 'ab/apache' tests which would also test HD/IO if getting large files.
For the 'em' driver I have seen some posts/cvs commit updates to the
driver saying it now works better without polling then with polling. I
think this
On Sunday 19 March 2006 19:43, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:02:26PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > On Saturday 04 March 2006 15:51, Pieter de Boer wrote:
> > > Adam McDougall wrote:
> > > > Could someone possibly take a look at this and let me know if it
> > > > looks 'broken' o
Marco's Zec's work IHMO is pretty good to be ignored. It can be
adopted to 6.x pretty easily. I think having this in the base system
along with jails makes it even more sweater and makes us a step ahead
of zones (as in OpenSolaris).
I understand it's an overkill for your requirements, but it's the
I'm looking at a problem where I want onemachine to really look like 2.
this means I want to have 2 separate routing tables if possible.
I know I could do it with eas if I could user Marco Zec's vimage patches
but I need to have a path forward to 6.x and beyond
An answer would be to re-implement
Sam Leffler wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Are you referring to the problem in cvsup tests where it will suddenly
stop with a "Network write failure" error?
Yes. The issue was that when crypto was done in the host it was
sometimes being done in-place on mbufs still owned by the socket
(exac
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Sunday 19 March 2006 16:47, dima wrote:
the new version at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060315.both.tgz
>>
The new driver didn't pass cvsup test at my laptop :(
It fails large file upload either.
It's definitely a flow control probl
Max Laier wrote:
On Sunday 19 March 2006 16:47, dima wrote:
the new version at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060315.both.tgz
>>
The new driver didn't pass cvsup test at my laptop :(
It fails large file upload either.
It's definitely a flow control problem. Is taskqueue designe
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:02:26PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 15:51, Pieter de Boer wrote:
> > Adam McDougall wrote:
> > > Could someone possibly take a look at this and let me know if it
> > > looks 'broken' or if I might be doing something wrong? I am in
> > > a crunch t
i changed sk to em.
how could i measure speed or benchmark the network performance?
- Original Message -
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, OxY wrote:
Hi,
Just on a hunch, can you try putting the card in a different PCI slot?
There may be interrupt routing issues.
okay, i will try it in a couple days
the card also has a sysctl for intr moderation. See man 4 sk. The
default changed with Pyun's updated driv
Max Laier wrote:
All,
the new version at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060315.both.tgz
should build for RELENG_6 and HEAD. Make sure to have the latest RELENG_6
checkout with the taskqueue changes.
This version supports version 3.0 and version 2.4 firmware. From iwi_fw you
okay, i will try it in a couple days
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
On Mar 18, 2006, at 5:44 AM, OxY wrote:
hi!
i ha
On Mar 18, 2006, at 5:44 AM, OxY wrote:
hi!
i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
(system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
when the apache ran, with no http, just used to share files and the
traffic was
2-2,5MB/S i had 14-17% packet drop on the gigabi
On Sunday 19 March 2006 16:47, dima wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > the new version at:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060315.both.tgz
> >
> > should build for RELENG_6 and HEAD. Make sure to have the latest
> > RELENG_6 checkout with the taskqueue changes.
> >
> > This version supports v
> All,
>
> the new version at:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060315.both.tgz
>
> should build for RELENG_6 and HEAD. Make sure to have the latest RELENG_6
> checkout with the taskqueue changes.
>
> This version supports version 3.0 and version 2.4 firmware. From iwi_fw you
>
> i increased hz from 2000 to 5000, now the packet loss is decreased
> from 5-6% to 0.6-0,8% !!!
> huge improve!
> should i increase hz more?
You can. But remember that higher HZ values spend more CPU time for task
switching. So if the hardware is used for something more than only network
worklo
17 matches
Mail list logo
