Re: UDP sendto() returning ENOBUFS - "No buffer space available"

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 18 July 2014 13:40, Bruce Evans wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, hiren panchasara wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi! So the UDP transmit path is udp_usrreqs->pru_send() == udp_send() -> udp_output() -> ip_output() udp_

Re: UDP sendto() returning ENOBUFS - "No buffer space available"

> On Jul 18, 2014, at 23:34, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > It upsets the ALTQ people too. I'm an ALTQ person (pfSense, so maybe one if the biggest) and I'm not upset. That cr*p needs to die in a fire. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.

Re: UDP sendto() returning ENOBUFS - "No buffer space available"

Hi, On 18 July 2014 13:40, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, hiren panchasara wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> So the UDP transmit path is udp_usrreqs->pru_send() == udp_send() -> >>> udp_output() -> ip_output() >>> >>> udp_output() d

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

On 18 July 2014 19:06, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > > > 2014-07-19 2:18 GMT+08:00 Navdeep Parhar : > >> On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: >> > Hello guys, >> > >> > I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using >> > igb(4), >> > ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked p

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

On 07/18/14 19:06, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > > > 2014-07-19 2:18 GMT+08:00 Navdeep Parhar >: > > On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using > igb(4), > > ix

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

2014-07-19 2:18 GMT+08:00 Navdeep Parhar : > On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4), > > ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well. > > > > I'm wondering if anyone else could make a rev

Re: UDP sendto() returning ENOBUFS - "No buffer space available"

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, hiren panchasara wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi! So the UDP transmit path is udp_usrreqs->pru_send() == udp_send() -> udp_output() -> ip_output() udp_output() does do a M_PREPEND() which can return ENOBUFS. ip_output can also return ENOBU

Error building netmap for centOS 6.5

Hi: I downloaded the latest netmap repo from git and attempted to compile them. git clone https://code.google.com/p/netmap/ cd netmap/Linux make I get the following errors [devusr@testbox LINUX]$ make LIN_VER 20620 Building from /lib/modules/2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64/build/drivers/net ---

Re: UDP sendto() returning ENOBUFS - "No buffer space available"

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi! > > So the UDP transmit path is udp_usrreqs->pru_send() == udp_send() -> > udp_output() -> ip_output() > > udp_output() does do a M_PREPEND() which can return ENOBUFS. ip_output > can also return ENOBUFS. > > it doesn't look like the sock

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > Hello guys, > > I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4), > ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well. > > I'm wondering if anyone else could make a review, and what I need to do, to > see this patch committe

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

Hi, I strongly object to having a round-robin method like this. Yes, we won't get > 1 link of bandwidth out of a single stream, but you're showing that you can't even get that. There's still something else weird going on. I'm sorry, but introducing more out of order possibilities is being a bad n

Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.

Hello guys, I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4), ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well. I'm wondering if anyone else could make a review, and what I need to do, to see this patch committed. Best Regards, 2014-06-24 10:40 GMT+08:00 Marcel