Just as a data point - disable preemption and try again?
And run 4BSD + no preemption, try again?
Adrian
On 30 August 2012 22:50, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 31.08.2012 12:19, Eugene Grosbein пишет:
>
>> With HEAD driver, for same test LA pikes to 8 and higher and it takes up to
>> 10 seconds
>>
31.08.2012 12:19, Eugene Grosbein пишет:
> With HEAD driver, for same test LA pikes to 8 and higher and it takes up to
> 10 seconds
> for userland applications like shell or screen(1) to respond to physical
> console events:
>
> last pid: 1335; load averages: 8.27, 4.05, 2.04up 0+0
In previous letter I've described my attempts to try vr(4) from HEAD.
Now I'd like to explain why I've tried it.
The problem is that stock vr(4) from 8.3-STABLE/i386 has serious issues for my
system.
I have home router with two vr interfaces, vr0 is for LAN (IPoE) and vr1 is for
WAN (PPPoE/mpd).
01.09.2012 01:07, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> It would be interesting to know whether there is any difference
> before/after taskq change made in r235334. I was told that taskq
> conversion for vr(4) resulted in better performance but I think
> taskq shall add more burden on slow hardware.
> Pre-r235
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:11:58PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
> You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>
> >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
> Not a problem at all, here it is:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2012-Aug-26 08:12:51 -0400, "Dustin J. Mitchell"
>> wrote:
>>>On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell
>>>wrote:
Hey folks. I'm trying to set up a system wi
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:25PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ian.
> > You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
> >
> > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may n
Hi,
I'm using following devices:
bge0 - NetLink BCM57780 Gigabit Ethernet PCIe
ndis0 - BCM43225 802.11b/g/n
As far as I've tested it, each of them work fine for itself.
I want to aggregate them using lagg in failover mode as explained here[1][2].
But when I remove the wire (wireless connection
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:25PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ian.
> > You wrote 30 ??? 2012 ?., 10:23:56:
> >
> > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may n
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 08:01:50AM -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> > ip from any to any in recv vr0
>
> "any" here is also not appropriate...
it is just sintactic sugar, "from any to any" corresponds
is just printed by
defau
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
> You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>
> >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
> Not a problem at all, here it is:
> http
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 23:01:12:
>> Yes, it is only 500Mhz Geode LX, but it is only 40 mbit/s and
>> 4.5Kpps in both directions, nothing like full 100Mbit or more, and
>> I've learned "empirical" rule/heuristics about 1Gbit(!) per 1Ghz(!)
>> for softrouters, So, theoretical
On 30 August 2012 02:11, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Yes, it is only 500Mhz Geode LX, but it is only 40 mbit/s and
> 4.5Kpps in both directions, nothing like full 100Mbit or more, and
> I've learned "empirical" rule/heuristics about 1Gbit(!) per 1Ghz(!)
> for softrouters, So, theoretically, 40mbit
Hi,
I have a patch laying around, that makes if_bridge(4) utilize
if_transmit method. That should improvide performance.
I'd appreciate if someone who actually do use if_bridge(4) tests
this patch.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
Index: if_bridge.c
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:45:29 pm Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On 08/29/12 10:30, Vijay Singh wrote:
> > All, I am seeing this warning on my 8.2 based system.
> >
> > taskqueue_drain with the following non-sleepable locks held:
> > exclusive rw lle (lle) r = 0 (0xff0014dc9110) locked @
> > s
The following reply was made to PR kern/164475; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Eugene M. Zheganin"
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/164475: [gre] gre misses RUNNING flag after a reboot
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:30:04 +0600
Guys, it's still there.
FreeBSD alix-panicbox
Hello, Ian.
You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
Not a problem at all, here it is:
http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/_sklad/firewall.ipfw
IS> Hmm, you shouldn't
On 30 August 2012 04:23, Vijay Singh wrote:
> Is there any reason why sorele() needs the accept lock to be held?
>
> 231 #define sorele(so) do {
> \
> 232 ACCEPT_LOCK_ASSERT();
> \
> 233
18 matches
Mail list logo
