On 3/15/2012 7:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
2012/3/14 Eugene Grosbein:
15.03.2012 06:33, hiren panchasara пишет:
network_interfaces is basically historic rudiment
used in 2.2.x FreeBSD version and alike.
In general, you should not use it in modern version at all.
Thanks Eugene
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 16:59 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
> Hey, I just found a bind bug ticket in my queue about bind. I noted
> that on stable/6 stable/7 stable/9 & head the referenced code "fails".
>
> It seems that this is a problem, but I have no idea if its a real
> problem or not. Our devs thi
Hey, I just found a bind bug ticket in my queue about bind. I noted
that on stable/6 stable/7 stable/9 & head the referenced code "fails".
It seems that this is a problem, but I have no idea if its a real
problem or not. Our devs think it is. Anyway, here is a code snippet
to show the failure i
>
> Hmm, so I have yet to test this, but I found several bugs related to transmit
> in em(4) and igb(4) recently just reading the code. (Mostly unnecessary
> scheduling of tasks for transmit.) I've included your change of restarting
> TX when link becomes active. I've also updated it to fix r
2012/3/14 Eugene Grosbein :
> 15.03.2012 06:33, hiren panchasara пишет:
>
>> network_interfaces is basically historic rudiment
>> used in 2.2.x FreeBSD version and alike.
>>
>> In general, you should not use it in modern version at all.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Eugene.
>>
>> So, the only way to
2012/3/15 Chuck Swiger
I prefer IPFW myself, but you probably ran out of stateful rule slots. For
> a high-volume services which is expected to be Internet-reachable (ie, port
> 80 to a busy webserver), you really just don't want to have stateful
> rules-- it's too easy to DoS the firewall itsel
On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Seyit Özgür wrote:
> sori my opinion but i m not a BSD guru.. i just working on BSD like 2 months..
> i know that PF or IPFW isn't build multicore arhitecture... As i know if my
> server got on heavy Syn flood traffic PF or IPFW don't enough 1 core..
> i also tried
> net.inet.tcp.finwait2_timeout <-- lower this
> net.inet.tcp.fast_finwait2_recycle <-- set this to 1
Not present. This state has lingered for a couple
years. It needs upgraded anyways, reboot coming.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists
On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Seyit Özgür wrote:
> Thanks for quick reply.. but i don't use firewall. i tried to use PF..
> Packer filter stucks up to 100.000 syn packets flooding(on open port)..
> Without packet filter it handle much more syn flooding. Like 1Mpps can handle
> w/o interrupts that
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:47:07 am Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> On 3/11/2012 5:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Are you able to post the patch here?
> > Maybe Jack can look at what's going on and apply it to the latest
> > intel ethernet driver.
> >
> >
> > Adrian
> >
>
> Below is the patch for if_em.c
sori my opinion but i m not a BSD guru.. i just working on BSD like 2 months..
i know that PF or IPFW isn't build multicore arhitecture... As i know if my
server got on heavy Syn flood traffic PF or IPFW don't enough 1 core..
i also tried Syn_cookie, Syn_cookie_only and syn_cache.. if i set up sy
Thanks for quick reply.. but i don't use firewall. i tried to use PF..
Packer filter stucks up to 100.000 syn packets flooding(on open port).. Without
packet filter it handle much more syn flooding. Like 1Mpps can handle w/o
interrupts that i see on my equiment
But in this case "malformed packet
On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Seyit Özgür wrote:
> Today we tried to see what happens Malformed syn packets on FreeBSD 9.0
> release..
>
> Those packets rise to CPU %100 and stucks..
>
> listening on ix0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
> 18:33:30.010215 IP vgn44-1-88-123-8
On 15 March 2012 12:09, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> I forget, is it possible to not compile in multi-FIB support?
>
> 1) does this have anything to do with this thread?
It depends if the eventual aim of this is to just have multi-FIB
support enabled by default with no way to compile it out, and wha
Hi,
Today we tried to see what happens Malformed syn packets on FreeBSD 9.0
release..
Those packets rise to CPU %100 and stucks..
listening on ix0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
18:33:30.010215 IP vgn44-1-88-123-89-40.fbx.proxad.net > 85.xxx.xxx.90: tcp
18:33:30.010242 I
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:01:49 +0100 Andre Oppermann wrote:
AO> Yes, doesn't compute this way. I've put in your fix in this revision:
AO> http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232867
Running your branch, smbfs tests have passed and no issues have been detected
so far.
--
Mikolaj Golub
__
On 15. Mar 2012, at 19:04 , Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I forget, is it possible to not compile in multi-FIB support?
1) does this have anything to do with this thread?
2) yes, if you can live without your routing table, no if not. Not sure you
can spare the 240(?) bytes on 64bit if you jus
Hi,
I forget, is it possible to not compile in multi-FIB support?
Adrian
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Opps, you're right, hadn't had my coffee and was thinking about igb :)
Still have never seen this error before.
Jack
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > You have header split on?? I've not seen this before s
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> You have header split on?? I've not seen this before so something odd
> is going on.
>
AFAIK, you never implemented header-split on em(4), despite hardware
supporting it, so that question is pointless.
- Arnaud
> Jack
>
>
> On Thu, Mar
You have header split on?? I've not seen this before so something odd
is going on.
Jack
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Juli Mallett wrote:
> All,
>
> On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB
> or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of:
>
> Refresh mbufs
ly in the future (subject to mbuf changes).
http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20120315-01-rt_numfibs.diff
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good y
On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:57 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> Hi. I've got 900-1000 connections stuck in FIN_WAIT_2.
> The processes behind them on both sides have long
> since exited. Anything I can do to clear them out
> short of reboot? The box is 4.11, so no tcpdrop to try.
> I suspect this may be starting
Hi. I've got 900-1000 connections stuck in FIN_WAIT_2.
The processes behind them on both sides have long
since exited. Anything I can do to clear them out
short of reboot? The box is 4.11, so no tcpdrop to try.
I suspect this may be starting to limit mbuf clusters.
Not sure. The box is idle. If in
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:39:30AM -0700, Juli Mallett wrote:
> All,
>
> On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB
> or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of:
>
> Refresh mbufs: hdr dmamap load failure - 22
>
> If I disable msix, then the messages go away.
All,
On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB
or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of:
Refresh mbufs: hdr dmamap load failure - 22
If I disable msix, then the messages go away. I am not sure why msix
vs. non-msix would matter in this case unless in the ms
Hello
Is there a 6RD patch for FreeBSD9? The only patch I see is for Freebsd8:
http://bougaidenpa.org/masakazu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/freebsd8-6rd-20100130.patch.gz
Regards,
Thomas
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
On 15 March 2012 02:48, Adarsh Joshi wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I tried to destroy a lagg interface (created using laggproto none) and I see
> the system crash.
>
> Steps to reproduce:
> Kldload if_lagg
> Ifconfig lagg0 create
> ifconfig lagg0 up laggproto none laggport ql0 laggport ql1 192.168
28 matches
Mail list logo
