Re: trunk interface (was (no subject))

Thomas Vogt wrote: Hi Thanks. I know about the netgraph ether/fec interfaces. But I thought about a solution without netgraph. AFAIK Netgraph implies overhead and ng_ehter is more complicated to set up. This is a problem with non technical people. I'm happy they already know a bit about

Re: Load Balancing

Michael Jeung wrote: We currently use DNS round-robin to balance traffic to servers. We've recently run into situations where multiple search engine spiders are crawling our webservers. They appear to be targeting specific webservers by IP address. This defeats DNS round-robin and as a resu

Re: Load Balancing

On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:42:24 -0700 Michael Jeung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > We currently use DNS round-robin to balance traffic to servers. > We've recently run into situations where multiple search engine > spiders are crawling our webservers. They appear to be targeting

Re: trunk interface (was (no subject))

Hi Thanks. I know about the netgraph ether/fec interfaces. But I thought about a solution without netgraph. AFAIK Netgraph implies overhead and ng_ehter is more complicated to set up. This is a problem with non technical people. I'm happy they already know a bit about ifconfig commands.

Problem with iterative load/unload of em

Our internal test group has run into a problem, I have witnessed it, but not had time to pursue it. I was wondering if this has been previously observed, and if anyone has any thoughts. What they do is run a script that runs 100 passes at loading, bringing up and configuring the driver, then brin

Load Balancing

Hey folks, We currently use DNS round-robin to balance traffic to servers. We've recently run into situations where multiple search engine spiders are crawling our webservers. They appear to be targeting specific webservers by IP address. This defeats DNS round-robin and as a result 1

Re: (no subject)

On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:52:40 +0200 Thomas Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > Does FreeBSD offers anything similar like trunk(4) on OpenBSD (link > aggregation and link failover interface)? Is your browser broken? http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=freebsd+interface+bond

mbuf denied problem

hi! i have a problem with mbuf... when all my free memory is gone ( i have 2gb ram) and memory allocation looks like this: Mem: 30M Active, 1607M Inact, 245M Wired, 84M Cache, 214M Buf, 3028K Free Swap: 695M Total, 695M Free mbuf starts to deny... netstat -m show 0 deny till has memory, after th

(no subject)

Hello Does FreeBSD offers anything similar like trunk(4) on OpenBSD (link aggregation and link failover interface)? Cheers, Thomas ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send an

Re: Can't delete route

Oliver Fromme wrote: Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the > command: > > # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 > add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 You used the wrong syntax. Correct synta

Re: Can't delete route

Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the > command: > > # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 > add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 You used the wrong syntax. Correct syntax is: # route add -net

Re: Can't delete route

John Nielsen wrote: On Thursday 18 May 2006 11:31, Alexandre Biancalana wrote: Hi List, Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the command: # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 Running netstat -nr I get the

Re: Can't delete route

Joshua Blanton wrote: Joe Holden wrote: Alexandre Biancalana wrote: # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 add net route add 128.110/8 10.0.0.17 /16 would probably be a better choice ;-) --jtb oh, yes, my bad, i meant /16...been a long day :( Thanks, Jo

Re: Can't delete route

Joe Holden wrote: > Alexandre Biancalana wrote: > ># route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 add net > > route add 128.110/8 10.0.0.17 /16 would probably be a better choice ;-) --jtb signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Can't delete route

On Thursday 18 May 2006 11:31, Alexandre Biancalana wrote: > Hi List, > > Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the > command: > > # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 > add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 > >Running netstat -nr I get the following:

Re: Can't delete route

Alexandre Biancalana wrote: Hi List, Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the command: # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 Running netstat -nr I get the following: 0&0xa11255.255.0.0

Can't delete route

Hi List, Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the command: # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17 add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0 Running netstat -nr I get the following: 0&0xa11255.255.0.0UGSc 15 332

Re: crdit

Dear Home 0vvner, Your crredit doesn't matter to us! If you OVVN reeal essttate and want IMMEDlATE cassh to sppend ANY way you like, or simply wish to LOVVER your monthly paayments by a third or more, here are the deeals we have TOdDAY: $ 490 , 000 as lovv as 3 , 65 % $ 370 , 000 as lovv as 3 ,

Re: disable kernel driver at boot?

sfp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As I said, that's simple: Remove the driver from your > > kernel configuration, then recompile the kernel. Easy. > > True. That should have read, suppress from the loader. As stated several times, you cannot "unload" a driver which is compiled statica

Re: /31 on 2 interfaces

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 13:33 +0200, Unix-Solutions - Steven wrote: > I'm need a point-to-point link between 2 servers > with just a crossover cable between the servers. > I've got no poblem: box1: ifconfig em0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 route add -net 10.0.0.2/32 -iface em0 -clonin