Willy Offermans wrote this message on Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 15:46 +0100:
> Hello John-Mark and FreeBSD friends,
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 04:04:27PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Willy Offermans wrote this message on Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 18:22 +0100:
> > > Hello John-Mark and FreeBSD friends
2014-03-28 5:37 GMT+08:00 Rick Macklem :
> Christopher Forgeron wrote:
> > I'm quite sure the problem is on 9.2-RELEASE, not 9.1-RELEASE or
> > earlier,
> > as a 9.2-STABLE from last year I have doesn't exhibit the problem.
> > New
> > code in if.c at line 660 looks to be what is starting this, w
Christopher Forgeron wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Rick Macklem < rmack...@uoguelph.ca
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've suggested in the other thread what you suggested in a recent
> post...ie. to change the default, at least until the propagation
> of driver set values i
Marcelo Araujo wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
> 2014-03-27 8:27 GMT+08:00 Rick Macklem :
> >
> > Well, bumping it from 32->35 is all it would take for NFS (can't
> > comment
> > w.r.t. iSCSI). ixgbe uses 100 for the 82598 chip and 32 for the
> > 82599
> > (just so others aren't confused by the above com
Christopher Forgeron wrote:
> I'm quite sure the problem is on 9.2-RELEASE, not 9.1-RELEASE or
> earlier,
> as a 9.2-STABLE from last year I have doesn't exhibit the problem.
> New
> code in if.c at line 660 looks to be what is starting this, which
> makes me
> wonder how TSO was being handled bef
Is the IPv6 neighbor cache supposed to not inlcude incomplete entries? When my
freebsd box resolves a previously unknown ipv6 address with ndp it does not add
anything to the neighbor cache before it gets a reachability confirmation. I
have viewed the neighbor cache with ndp -a.
The ipv6 addre
On 26.03.2014, at 03:33, Christopher Forgeron wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Markus Gebert
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Is 65517 correct? With Ricks patch, I get this:
>>
>> dev.ix.0.hw_tsomax: 65518
>>
>
> Perhaps a difference between 9.2 and 10 for one of the macros? My code is:
>
>
I'm quite sure the problem is on 9.2-RELEASE, not 9.1-RELEASE or earlier,
as a 9.2-STABLE from last year I have doesn't exhibit the problem. New
code in if.c at line 660 looks to be what is starting this, which makes me
wonder how TSO was being handled before 9.2.
I also like Rick's NFS patch for
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
>
> I've suggested in the other thread what you suggested in a recent
> post...ie. to change the default, at least until the propagation
> of driver set values is resolved.
>
> rick
>
I wonder if we need to worry about propagating values up
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> ie. I've suggested:
> ifp->if_hw_tsomax = min(32 * MCLBYTES - (ETHER_HDR_LEN +
> ETHER_VLAN_ENCAP_LEN),
> IP_MAXPACKET);
> - I put the min() in just so it wouldn't break if MCLBYTES is increased
> someday.
>
I like the added s
10 matches
Mail list logo
