--- On Tue, 5/1/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> From: Juli Mallett
> Subject: Re: igb(4) at peak in big purple
> To: "Barney Cordoba"
> Cc: "Sean Bruno" , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 5:50 PM
> Hey Barney,
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:13, Barney Cordoba
> wrote:
> >
Old Synopsis: Kernel panics in em driver
New Synopsis: [em] [panic] Kernel panics in em driver
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue May 1 23:12:34 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http://www.f
Hey Barney,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:13, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> --- On Fri, 4/27/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > [Tricking Intel's cards into giving something like round-robin packet
> > delivery to multiple queues. ]
>
> That seems like a pretty naive approach. First, you want all of the packet
it somewhere
> and send a link?
nope, my fault, i forgot to put the attachment. I have now put it at
http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20120501-netmap_drop.diff
cheers
luigi
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.or
On 1. May 2012, at 15:40 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:27:42AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 15:03 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing my profiling on network performance, another place
>>> were we waste a lot of time is if_ethersubr.c::ether
Hi,
I KNOW you own the driver,i just mentioned that because its not listed on
intel's site,and that would be a base for decisions
when someone want to pick a card that works on fbsd:)
so its better get listed as well, no one is going to check *.c files.
Sami
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Jack V
Synopsis: [em] [lagg] Problem on 8.0-STABLE with em and lagg
Responsible-Changed-From-To: jfv->net
Responsible-Changed-By: emaste
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue May 1 18:53:35 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
It sounds like this is a problem with lagg(4) not em(4) and so shouldn't
be assigned to
I believe I have the same problem, using a similar chip (but not exact chip
number). Interface is unusable because it hangs whenever I use it for
NFS/iscsi.
Here's a thread I have in the FreeBSD forum
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=31745
Thanks for the patch, I might look into using i
--- On Fri, 4/27/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> From: Juli Mallett
> Subject: Re: igb(4) at peak in big purple
> To: "Sean Bruno"
> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
> Date: Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:00 PM
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:29, Sean
> Bruno
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 11:13 -0700,
Just so everyone is clear, the ixgbe driver in 8.3 has X540 support, as
well as HEAD,
stable/9 has not yet been MFC'd, its on my 'todo' list.
Jack
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Funny, since I own the driver, one would think I'd know :)
>
> If you go look in the source di
Funny, since I own the driver, one would think I'd know :)
If you go look in the source directory for ixgbe you'll find a couple files
in there: ixgbe_x540.[ch]. That should be a clue...
Jack
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Sami Halabi wrote:
> x540has no fbsd driver
>
> Sami
>
>
> On Tue, M
x540has no fbsd driver
Sami
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> The 82599 is and has been officially supported for some time, the manual
> tends to lag, I will try and get it updated. In fact, given a choice I
> would always
> go with the 599. And yes, the X540 should be stable,
On May 1, 2012, at 11:40 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:27:42AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 15:03 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing my profiling on network performance, another place
>>> were we waste a lot of time is if_ethersubr.c::ether
The following reply was made to PR kern/138620; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Ed Maste
To: ,
Cc:
Subject: kern/138620 [patch] Sysctl for direct BPF writes to lagg child ports
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 13:08:01 -0400
--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Di
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:38:49PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:19:39PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 08, 2012 1:11:25 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 04:22:07PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > > > Make sure you have any f
The 82599 is and has been officially supported for some time, the manual
tends to lag, I will try and get it updated. In fact, given a choice I
would always
go with the 599. And yes, the X540 should be stable, its just not yet being
used as much yet.
Jack
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Julian S
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:27:42AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 15:03 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > Continuing my profiling on network performance, another place
> > were we waste a lot of time is if_ethersubr.c::ether_output()
> >
> > In particular, from the beginning
On Apr 20, 2012, at 15:03 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Continuing my profiling on network performance, another place
> were we waste a lot of time is if_ethersubr.c::ether_output()
>
> In particular, from the beginning of ether_output() to the
> final call to ether_output_frame() the code takes slight
Alright, here's a copy of my pf.conf:
http://pastie.org/private/yt7h3erbowgg4pf5v7fh5a
As for patches... unfortunately I'm not too sharp with C.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Darren Pilgrim
wrote:
> On 2012-04-30 17:44, Michael MacLeod wrote:
>
>> At the end of the day we could solve it by g
Thus spake Marko Zec :
> Hi all,
>
> Although the ixgbe driver appears to have code for both 82598 and 82599
> chipsets, the manual page stil lists only 82598 based cards as officially
> supported. Does anybody have first-hand experiences with 82599 based cards
> and recent versions of the ixg
20 matches
Mail list logo
