Folks, I'm using -current from 2006-11-16 05:00 UTC and find that my
em interfaces are unusable on two quite different platforms. I've
tried a lot of things to make sure it's not a local fubar here,
including doing a "make release" using a virgin source tree and
installing fresh from the resulting
Andre Oppermann wrote:
> This is a patch adding automatic TCP send socket buffer sizing. Normally
> the socket buffers are static (either derived from global defaults or set
> with setsockopt) and do not adapt to real network conditions. Two things
> happen: a) your socket buffers are too small
Pieter de Boer wrote:
Andre Oppermann wrote:
With automatic TCP send socket buffers we can start with a small buffer
and quickly grow it in parallel with the TCP congestion window to match
real network conditions.
Are you planning to implement something similar for the receive path?
Yes, b
Andre Oppermann wrote:
With automatic TCP send socket buffers we can start with a small buffer
and quickly grow it in parallel with the TCP congestion window to match
real network conditions.
Are you planning to implement something similar for the receive path?
--
Pieter
Morgan wrote:
A RELENG_6 version (for FreeBSD 6.x) of the patch is here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/tcp_auto_sndbuf-20061116-RELE
NG_6.diff
Just apply this patch and recompile your kernel. It is
activated by default.
Downloaded, applied, recompiled, installed and rebooted without a
> A RELENG_6 version (for FreeBSD 6.x) of the patch is here:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/tcp_auto_sndbuf-20061116-RELE
> NG_6.diff
>
> Just apply this patch and recompile your kernel. It is
> activated by default.
Downloaded, applied, recompiled, installed and rebooted without any e
Andre Oppermann wrote:
With automatic TCP send socket buffers we can start with a small buffer
and quickly grow it in parallel with the TCP congestion window to match
real network conditions.
>
The patch is available here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/tcp_auto_sndbuf-20061116.diff
Any te
Greetings,
Does anyone know if IPFW fwd and/or divert work with if_bridge under
FreeBSD 6.x?
Will Luigi's 4.X patches to enable fwd on bridges work under 6.X? even
using if_bridge?
Regards,
Nick
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fr
Hello Everybody,
I am trying to move one of my servers/routers from linux/iptables to
freebsd/pf, and need a methodology of testing the pf firewall ruleset
before it will go in production. I cannot experiment on live network,
because it's a busy server.
I only have one other machine avail
Hello Everybody,
I am trying to move one of my servers/routers from linux/iptables to
freebsd/pf, and need a methodology of testing the pf firewall ruleset
before it will go in production. I cannot experiment on live network,
because it's a busy server.
I only have one other machine avail
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 10:30:49AM +0100, Robert M. wrote:
> Hi,
Hi.
> ipsec-tools-0.6.6 installed
Did you use port's default options, or did you change some of them ?
> No matter what racoon.conf file I use I'm getting the following
> info when running racoon in foreground mode:
>
> 2006-11-
Hi,
ipsec-tools-0.6.6 installed
No matter what racoon.conf file I use I'm getting the following
info when running racoon in foreground mode:
2006-11-17 10:26:28: DEBUG: caught rtm:2, need update interface address list
2006-11-17 10:26:28: DEBUG: msg 1 not interesting
2006-11-17 10:26:28: DEBUG:
12 matches
Mail list logo