On Sunday 21 January 2007 07:25, Bruce Evans wrote:
> nfs writes much less well with bge NICs than with other NICs (sk, fxp,
Do you use hardware checksumming on the bge? There is an XXX in
bge_start_locked() that looks a bit suspicious to me.
> xl, even rl). Sometimes writing a 20K source file
nfs writes much less well with bge NICs than with other NICs (sk, fxp, xl,
even rl). Sometimes writing a 20K source file from vi seems to take about
2 seconds instead of seeming to be instantaneous (this gets faster as the
system warms up). Iozone shows the problem more reproducibly. E.g.:
100
On Sunday 21 January 2007 03:28, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 + (UTC),
> > "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our
> inet_pton incorrect emaste> in rejecting it?
>
> >> The change was
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 + (UTC),
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
>>
>> The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
>> CHANGES:
>>
>>
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500
Ed Maste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
Wishmaster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/92090
Have you tried this one?
http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-bge-releng62
Cheers,
--
Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!
signature.asc
Description: O
Hi,
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/92090
--
Best regards,
Wishmaster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, se
Hi,
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500
> Ed Maste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
CHANGES:
935. [bug]
It turns out an application at work is passing an IP address to inet_pton
that is formatted slightly strangely; it ends up being something of the form
1.002.3.4. In 4.x inet_pton reports this as valid and returns 1.2.3.4. (I
also checked that it's just ignoring the leading zeros, not parsing the
"Bruce A. Mah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
bm> I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
bm> and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
bm> traffic over them.
bm>
bm> Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this:
b
If memory serves me right, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> "Bruce A. Mah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> bm> I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
> bm> and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
> bm> traffic over them.
[snip]
I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
traffic over them.
Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this:
# ifconfig gif0 inet6 :::::1 :::::2 prefixlen
128
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
