At 10:26 19/12/2006, Randall Stewart wrote:
I have always thought of it as a bit of a hack as well... and
there is one really big problem with it.. It has no value
unless you can tell your network-interface card to deliver
damaged packets. I don't know if some cards have this option
now or not..
On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> > I ran cvsup again, unfortenatly there was changes in world since the
>> > last cvsup so I have done a new buildworld as well to keep it all
>> > synched and then done a unpatched kernel, after that I have patched
>> > and usin
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> > I ran cvsup again, unfortenatly there was changes in world since the
>> > last cvsup so I have done a new buildworld as well to keep it all
>> > synched and then done a unpatched kernel, after that I have patched
>> > and using testkernel. So far seems to be working fine.
On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
> On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on
>> RELENG_6_2
>> >> > but the box is
Chris wrote:
> On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on
>> RELENG_6_2
>> >> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >
>> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on RELENG_6_2
>> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
>> > UNOFFICIAL so it's up to you
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >
>> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on RELENG_6_2
>> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
>> > UNOFFICIAL so it's up to you to decide whether you want it.
>>
>> Oops, forgot
If I bridge two ethernets, one with HW_vlan tagging and the other
without, and there are vlans active on that network, am I right in
assuming that it requires that the two ethernets need to both have their
HW_vlan capabilities on or off, but that it won't work if they are mixed?
The bridging co
On 21/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LI Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
>> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>>
>> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>>
>> so wors
LI Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
>> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>>
>> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>>
>> so worst case scenario with patch during a DOS they wil
Hi,
Chris wrote:
> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>
> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>
> so worst case scenario with patch during a DOS they will all use 256k
> windows
On 20/12/06, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Andre,
Thank you for your work, it looks very exciting !
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> The
> automatic send buffer is not perfect either and has some cases where
> it may allocate too much resources o
Hello,
I am having an issue with NFS and SMB on two FreeBSD machines.
The particularly strange thing is that this problem didn't occur when I
ran Gentoo Linux on PC_2.
Setup:
1. PC_1 and PC_2 share with each other via NFS.
2. Both PCs run patched versions of FreeBSD 6.1 RELEASE (see below)
13 matches
Mail list logo
