On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:07 AM, wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> The function always returns an error and remove the chain MBUF for two or
> more generated on the same host.
> If the pre-call m_defrag no error occurs.
> This is normal behavior?
> How to know in advance the maximum size for MBUF that does n
On 02.02.2012 5:11, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 01.02.2012 20:45, Andrey Zonov wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to tune machine with 8.2-STABLE for heavy network load and
now playing with netisr. Could anyone explain me why actually works only
one netisr thread if I set them to 8?
Can you please su
On 2/1/12 11:07 AM, rozhuk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
The function always returns an error and remove the chain MBUF for two or
more generated on the same host.
If the pre-call m_defrag no error occurs.
This is normal behavior?
How to know in advance the maximum size for MBUF that does not caus
Old Synopsis: VIMAGE + carp panics the kernel
New Synopsis: [netinet] [patch] VIMAGE + carp panics the kernel
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Feb 1 23:59:08 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s)
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:50:23PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Huh? I MFC'd into stable/8 does that show up as RELENG?
I suspect different SCMs here is causing terminology confusion. RELENG_8
is the CVS version of the stable/8 branch in SVN.
Gary
___
f
Normally, except I have real world customers that have explicitly told me
they
needed something in 8.3 whereas no one has said they cared about stable/9,
that's why I did it first, I've never been aware that there was some
'trickle-down'
hierarchy, have always assumed its head or its stable :)
Jac
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:50:23 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
> Huh? I MFC'd into stable/8 does that show up as RELENG? And, I had planned
> to
> put it into stable/9 just hadn't gotten to it yet. Making sure the drivers
> are in 8.3 seems
> to be the most wanted target.
Err, normally things are me
Huh? I MFC'd into stable/8 does that show up as RELENG? And, I had planned
to
put it into stable/9 just hadn't gotten to it yet. Making sure the drivers
are in 8.3 seems
to be the most wanted target.
Jack
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 1:21 PM, Jack Vogel wro
On 1/29/2012 1:21 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> No, I told Mike I'd get it into 8.x, have just been busy, but will try
> and get it pushed up in the queue.
Thanks Jack, I see its now MFC'd into RELENG_8!
em1: port 0x2000-0x201f mem
0xb410-0xb411,0xb412-0xb4123fff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pc
On 01.02.2012 20:45, Andrey Zonov wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to tune machine with 8.2-STABLE for heavy network load and
now playing with netisr. Could anyone explain me why actually works only
one netisr thread if I set them to 8?
Can you please supply `nestat -Q` output and clarify you usage patte
Hi,
I'm trying to tune machine with 8.2-STABLE for heavy network load and
now playing with netisr. Could anyone explain me why actually works
only one netisr thread if I set them to 8?
loader.conf:
net.isr.maxthreads=8
net.isr.bindthreads=0 (also tried set to 1)
hw.em.rxd=4096
(net.isr.numt
Hello!
The function always returns an error and remove the chain MBUF for two or
more generated on the same host.
If the pre-call m_defrag no error occurs.
This is normal behavior?
How to know in advance the maximum size for MBUF that does not cause a
failure in m_pullup?
mbuf: 0xfe0074fc06
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:24 AM wrote Eugene Grosbein
>01.02.2012 21:12, Eric W. Bates пишет:
>> On 2/1/2012 3:06 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> If it's a hurricane electric tunnel don't you want protocol 41?
>>
>> Well, it's a straight up gif. Right this second I'm trying to suss out
>> wh
[sigh]
I stand enlightened with increased understanding. Thank you very much.
That is exactly what I've been seeing on my pfSense machine and could
not replicate on my stand-alone FBSD box.
On 2/1/2012 10:14 AM, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:15:15 -0500
"Eric W. Bates"
Hi,
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:15:15 -0500
> "Eric W. Bates" said:
ericx> On 2/1/2012 3:32 AM, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
> ericx> Am I even correct in assuming that my gif packets are being blocked?
>
> Are you trying to pass an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel? If so,
>
> $fwcmd add 00140
01.02.2012 21:12, Eric W. Bates пишет:
> On 2/1/2012 3:06 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> If it's a hurricane electric tunnel don't you want protocol 41?
>
> Well, it's a straight up gif. Right this second I'm trying to suss out
> which protocol gif's use. If it's documented, I can't find it. The
> cl
On 2/1/2012 3:32 AM, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
ericx> Am I even correct in assuming that my gif packets are being blocked?
Are you trying to pass an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel? If so,
$fwcmd add 00140 allow ip4 from $he_tun to me proto ipv6
$fwcmd add 00141 allow ip4 from me to
On 2/1/2012 3:06 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
If it's a hurricane electric tunnel don't you want protocol 41?
Well, it's a straight up gif. Right this second I'm trying to suss out
which protocol gif's use. If it's documented, I can't find it. The
closest bit I can find on the man page is:
The be
Hi,
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:36:56 -0500
> "Eric W. Bates" said:
ericx> Seems like a silly question; but how does one allow the packets
ericx> composing a gif tunnel thru ipfw?
ericx> I assumed a gif was made up of ipencap (IP proto 4) packets and added
rules:
ericx> $fwcmd add 00140
If it's a hurricane electric tunnel don't you want protocol 41?
On 01/31/2012 22:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 01.02.2012 11:36, Eric W. Bates пишет:
>> Seems like a silly question; but how does one allow the packets
>> composing a gif tunnel thru ipfw?
>>
>> I assumed a gif was made up of ipencap
20 matches
Mail list logo
