On Monday 14 June 2010 23:11:55 Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:56:53AM +0500, Sergey Perevalov wrote:
> > On 04.06.2010 02:46, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:51:00PM +0500, Perevalov Sergey wrote:
> > >>On 02.06.2010 03:24, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > >>>On
We're excited to announce Surge, the Scalability and Performance
Conference, to be held in Baltimore on Sept 30 and Oct 1, 2010. The
event focuses on case studies that demonstrate successes (and failures)
in Web applications and Internet architectures.
Our Keynote speakers include John Allspaw an
On 6/14/10 3:22 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
Hello,
on FreeBSD-STABLE at least ipfw wrongly interprets dummynet
configurations of the type:
pipe 10 config bw 1.5Mb
^^^
Given that there is an easy workaround (us
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on FreeBSD-STABLE at least ipfw wrongly interprets dummynet
> configurations of the type:
>
> pipe 10 config bw 1.5Mb
>^^^
Given that there is an easy workaround (use bw 1500Kbit/s)
i'd probably
Hello,
on FreeBSD-STABLE at least ipfw wrongly interprets dummynet
configurations of the type:
pipe 10 config bw 1.5Mb
^^^
as being 1bit/s configuration. Which is quite wrong in real production usage.
This simple patch fixes it http://tinyurl.com/33j6odw.
I am not sur
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:56:53AM +0500, Sergey Perevalov wrote:
> On 04.06.2010 02:46, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:51:00PM +0500, Perevalov Sergey wrote:
> >
> >>On 02.06.2010 03:24, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:31:13PM +0500, Perevalo
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:41, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 06/12/10 23:22, Kurt Buff wrote:
>
>> Again - they'll be putting up to 200 busy machines on each subnet. It
>> seems reasonable to limit the broadcast domains with VLANs.
>
> I know that everyone begins to talk about "limiting the broadcast
> d
I am NOT going to accept patches to defeat the code that Intel has put in
place,
if you want to hack the code that's your perogative but its like any other
custom
change, you made it, you manage it.
1G SFP do not work and are not supported, there IS a supported SFP+
multispeed
that can link at 1G,
If no one objects, the patch will be committed tomorrow. The current
patch is here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/bpf_tstamp3.diff
Some minor changes were done to bpf(4). Other than that, it is
identical to the previous patch.
Cheers,
Jung-uk Kim
__
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>>
One thing that the base driver probably ought to do is not fail in
attach if there's an unrecognized SFP+ module. S
On 06/12/10 23:22, Kurt Buff wrote:
> Again - they'll be putting up to 200 busy machines on each subnet. It
> seems reasonable to limit the broadcast domains with VLANs.
I know that everyone begins to talk about "limiting the broadcast
domains" when talking about VLANs sooner or later but I have
Note: to view an individual PR, use:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number).
The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsolete releases.
S Tracker
12 matches
Mail list logo
