On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 02:35:18PM +0200, Karl Stenlund wrote:
> I installed freebsd 9.0_amd64 and it can't find my network. i tried to add
> "if_re_load="YES"" But it didn't help.
> Is the Realtek 8111F not suported by freebsd yet?
> Motherboard: ASUS P8H77-I
Support for RTL8168/8111F was added a
Synopsis: [re] [panic] Kernel panic may be related to if_re.c (realtek 8168 )
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: yongari
State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 25 04:33:24 UTC 2012
State-Changed-Why:
There had been a lot of change since 8.1-RELEASE. Could you
reproduce this on 8.3-RELEA
Synopsis: [re] Realtek RTL8169 doesn't work with re(4)
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: yongari
State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 25 04:29:45 UTC 2012
State-Changed-Why:
Try diff at the following URL and let me know how it goes.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->yongari
First off lets start by referencing something that is correct and
staying within-band instead of OOB.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=route
Review that page and if you still have any questions then please ask
again.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 05:07:54PM -0400, satish amara wrote:
> Hi,
>
Synopsis: [msk] [hang] msk network driver cause freeze in FreeBSD 9.0 i386
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: yongari
State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 25 03:31:01 UTC 2012
State-Changed-Why:
Would you show me the output of both dmesg(8) and 'pciconf -lcbv'?
Responsible-Changed-F
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:11, Sean Bruno wrote:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/if_igb.c.txt
>
> 8 core machine
> 2 igb(4) interfaces
> set num_queues=4
>
> igb0:0 --> cpu0
> [...]
> igb1:0 --> cpu0
> [...]
>
> I suspect, that we need a static global to keep track of what cpu last
> was last
http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/if_igb.c.txt
Scenario I've just seen:
8 core machine
2 igb(4) interfaces
set num_queues=4
igb0:0 --> cpu0
igb0:1 --> cpu1
igb0:2 --> cpu2
igb0:3 --> cpu3
igb1:0 --> cpu0
igb1:1 --> cpu1
igb1:2 --> cpu2
igb1:3 --> cpu3
I suspect, that we need a static global to
On 24. Apr 2012, at 17:42 , Li, Qing wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a patch that has been sitting around for a long time due to
>>> review cycle latency that caches a pointer to the rtentry (and
>>> llentry) in the the inpcb. Before each use the rtentry is checked
>>> against a generation number in the r
Hi,
I am trying to see what is valid and is supported in latest
FreeBSD
Does BSD let user add routes to LLA destinations?
Does BSD let user specify LLA gateway without specifying the scope?
I see following man page which talks about scope but looks like it not
supported in the latest.
h
> >
> > I have a patch that has been sitting around for a long time due to
> > review cycle latency that caches a pointer to the rtentry (and
> > llentry) in the the inpcb. Before each use the rtentry is checked
> > against a generation number in the routing tree that is incremented
> on
> > every
Yup, all good points. In fact we have considered all of these while doing
the work. In case you haven't seen it already, we did write about these
issues in our paper and how we tried to address those, flow-table was one
of the solutions.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1592641
--Qing
> >
> >
>>
>
> I have a patch that has been sitting around for a long time due to
> review cycle latency that caches a pointer to the rtentry (and
> llentry) in the the inpcb. Before each use the rtentry is checked
> against a generation number in the routing tree that is incremented on
> every routing t
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 02:16:18PM +, Li, Qing wrote:
>> >
>> >From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and
>> >routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns
>> >in the total packet processing time, if i remem
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 02:16:18PM +, Li, Qing wrote:
> >
> >From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and
> >routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns
> >in the total packet processing time, if i remember well),
> >but there was a large gain with multiple conc
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM, K. Macy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Li, Qing wrote:
>>>
>> >From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and
>>>routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns
>>>in the total packet processing time, if i remember well),
>>>b
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Li, Qing wrote:
>>
> >From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and
>>routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns
>>in the total packet processing time, if i remember well),
>>but there was a large gain with multiple concurrent proce
>
>From previous tests, the difference between flowtable and
>routing table was small with a single process (about 5% or 50ns
>in the total packet processing time, if i remember well),
>but there was a large gain with multiple concurrent processes.
>
Yes, that sounds about right when we did the te
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:16:48PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 19.04.2012 22:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05:37PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >>On 19.04.2012 15:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
> >>>using the n
On 19.04.2012 22:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05:37PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 19.04.2012 15:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code
I installed freebsd 9.0_amd64 and it can't find my network. i tried to add
"if_re_load="YES"" But it didn't help.
Is the Realtek 8111F not suported by freebsd yet?
Motherboard: ASUS P8H77-I
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
20 matches
Mail list logo
