Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch

On 11/23/06, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 12:43 PM 11/23/2006, Vlad Galu wrote: > Can you please completely remove the iptables support from your >Linux configuration, as well as removing support for any packet filter >in FreeBSD? Also, please enable fast_forwarding. I did that a

Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch

At 12:43 PM 11/23/2006, Vlad Galu wrote: Can you please completely remove the iptables support from your Linux configuration, as well as removing support for any packet filter in FreeBSD? Also, please enable fast_forwarding. I did that a while ago. See http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html

Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch

On 11/23/06, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 08:09 AM 11/22/2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: >It would be interesting to know the real performance of Linux as a mere >router if we want a true comparision with FreeBSD performances. Re-tested, this time with a LINUX UP kernel and there is no

Re: 6-STABLE (6.2-PRE) and applications (named natd dhcpd) getting stuckin state zoneli (zone limit) - dynamic ipfw rules not working after time- vlans on em

Hi, On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:41:04 -0800, Jonathan Feally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on > this. > > names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone > limit) since I upgraded to the box to stable about a mont

zero kern.ipc.nsfbufs on amd64

Hello All, Why on AMD64 kern.ipc.nsfbufs always zero: # sysctl kern.ipc | fgrep nsfbufs kern.ipc.nsfbufsused: 0 kern.ipc.nsfbufspeak: 0 kern.ipc.nsfbufs: 0 # netstat -m | fgrep sfbufs 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) 0 requests for sfbufs denied 0 requests for sfbufs delayed # uname -srim F