On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive
packets needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the dynamic
rules in my firewall filter to timeout.
Is there a major objection to reducing the default idle time to
say 3
Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive
packets needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the
dynamic rules in my firewall filter to timeout.
Is there a major objection to reducing the default idle time to
say 3 to 5 minutes?
Simon Walton
_
All,
Our implementation of yppush is severely flawed, in that it makes
unsafe and unnecessary use of asynchronous I/O (F_ASYNC, SIGIO) on RPC
sockets. This specifically causes incorrect behaviour when pushing maps
to multiple server, and SIGIO occurs while a memory allocation operation
is in progr
On 8/11/06, Landon Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We saw this issue here on SMP systems running 6.1; I've been meaning
to set up a reproduction case in the lab and dig into the issue further.
Disabling the mpsafe network stack (debug.mpsafenet=0) is our
temporary work-around; rwatson mentione
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Robert Watson wrote this message on Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 11:07 +0100:
(4) Use top -S and vmstat -systat 1 to characerize the system load during a
do you mean systat -vmstat 1 ?
P.S. I normally use 2 instead of 1 since there is enough information
> Greeting colleagues. I've got two DL-360(pciX bus) servers,
> with BCM5704 NetXtreme Dual Gigabit Adapters(bge). The Uname
> is 6.1-RELEASE-p3. The bge interfaces of the both servers are
> connected with each other with a cat6 patchcord.
>Here are my settings:
> kernel config:
> options D
Robert Watson wrote this message on Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 11:07 +0100:
> (4) Use top -S and vmstat -systat 1 to characerize the system load during a
do you mean systat -vmstat 1 ?
P.S. I normally use 2 instead of 1 since there is enough information
on the screen that it takes longer than 1 second
Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:39 PM 8/10/2006, Julian Elischer wrote:
mpd does all the netgraph manipulation itself.
Julian, as I recall you were one of the original employees of Whistle
Communications, correct? Perhaps you can explain this: Why does mpd
require all of those link configuration
On Aug 11, 2006, at 09:22, Jack Vogel wrote:
On 8/11/06, Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:42:32PM +0200, Daniel Ryslink wrote:
D> We have started to use the em driver only recently, after the
upgrade to
D> gigabit connectivity (100 MBit NICs from
On 8/11/06, Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:42:32PM +0200, Daniel Ryslink wrote:
D> We have started to use the em driver only recently, after the upgrade to
D> gigabit connectivity (100 MBit NICs from Intel used the fxp driver).
D>
D> As for the freq
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:22:13PM -0700, mark wrote:
m> I cannot get netgraph to work with 10Gig interfaces
m> on FreeBSD 6.1. No errors, but no traffic seen.
m> Config works with 1 Gig interfaces. Anyone know why?
m>
m> ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether
m> ngctl mkpeer n
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:42:32PM +0200, Daniel Ryslink wrote:
D> We have started to use the em driver only recently, after the upgrade to
D> gigabit connectivity (100 MBit NICs from Intel used the fxp driver).
D>
D> As for the frequency of the incidents, here is a grep of the message
Hello,
We have started to use the em driver only recently, after the upgrade to
gigabit connectivity (100 MBit NICs from Intel used the fxp driver).
As for the frequency of the incidents, here is a grep of the messages:
~~
Aug 4 22:35:23 b2 kernel: em0: watchdog ti
On 8/11/06, Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Nikolas Britton wrote:
N> When is FreeBSD going to support the 82563EB/82564EB? Do we have anything
N> yet?
N>
N> http://www.intel.com/design/network/products/lan/docs/82563_64_docs.htm
It should be su
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Markus Oestreicher wrote:
M> Is planned to MFC the changes made to em(4) in January
M> (taskqueue, adaptive polling) for 6.2-RELEASE?
They've been merged recently.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
___
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Nikolas Britton wrote:
N> When is FreeBSD going to support the 82563EB/82564EB? Do we have anything
N> yet?
N>
N> http://www.intel.com/design/network/products/lan/docs/82563_64_docs.htm
It should be supported by fresh 6-STABLE.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:22:13PM -0700, mark wrote:
m> I cannot get netgraph to work with 10Gig interfaces
m> on FreeBSD 6.1. No errors, but no traffic seen.
m> Config works with 1 Gig interfaces. Anyone know why?
m>
m> ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether
m> ngctl mkpeer ngeth0: one2many lower on
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:06:00AM +0200, Daniel Ryslink wrote:
D> We have currently upgraded one of our routers to Gigabit connectivity and
D> FreeBSD 6.1 Release.
D>
D> The hardware is Supermicro SuperServer 5015M-T - we have tried both the
D> integrated NIC and yet another externa
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Dima Roshin wrote:
Greeting colleagues. I've got two DL-360(pciX bus) servers, with BCM5704
NetXtreme Dual Gigabit Adapters(bge). The Uname is 6.1-RELEASE-p3. The bge
interfaces of the both servers are connected with each other with a cat6
patchcord.
On any recent box, o
Hello,
We have currently upgraded one of our routers to Gigabit connectivity and
FreeBSD 6.1 Release.
The hardware is Supermicro SuperServer 5015M-T - we have tried both the
integrated NIC and yet another external Intel NIC - specifically
Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Server Adapter
PWLA849
20 matches
Mail list logo
