Re: Poor high-PPS performance of the 10G ixgbe(9) NIC/driver in FreeBSD 10.1

Maxim Sobolev sippysoft.com> writes: > > Yes, we've confirmed it's IXGBE_FDIR. That's good it comes disabled in 10.2. > > Thanks everyone for constructive input! > > -Max > ___ > freebsd-net freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mail

Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

I am failing to understand the reason behind this behavior. What should the congestion window (snd_cwnd) be set to when we hit loss? It seems that we set it to 1 segment right now. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/tcp_input.c?revision=286227&view=markup#l2531 I also see that in th

[Bug 200221] em0 watchdog timeout under load

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200221 --- Comment #18 from anth...@ury.org.uk --- Unfortunately, the server experienced a watchdog timeout this morning : Sep 2 07:39:49 urybsod kernel: em0: Watchdog timeout Queue[0]-- resetting Sep 2 07:39:49 urybsod kernel: Interface is RUNN

[Bug 200221] em0 watchdog timeout under load

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200221 --- Comment #17 from anth...@ury.org.uk --- Created attachment 160662 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=160662&action=edit svn di svn://svn0.eu.freebsd.org/base/stable/10/sys/dev/e1000 sys/dev/e1000 -- You are recei

[Bug 202680] Silent data corruption on em(4) interfaces

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202680 --- Comment #9 from Sean Bruno --- (In reply to Sean Bruno from comment #8) wait ... never mind. This is a lem(4) device not a em(4) device so those patches are not applicable. I'll think more. -- You are receiving this mail because: Yo

[Bug 202680] Silent data corruption on em(4) interfaces

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202680 --- Comment #8 from Sean Bruno --- Can you try to apply three changesets from head and see if the condition still exists? https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=286831 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=

[Bug 200221] em0 watchdog timeout under load

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200221 --- Comment #16 from Sean Bruno --- You'll need this one as well to avoid a panic: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=287330 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. __

Re: TCP Fast Open (RFC7413) for FreeBSD

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 01:30 -0400, Patrick Kelsey wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 2, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Rui Paulo wrote: On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 21:19 -0400, Patrick Kelsey wrote: Hi, About two weeks from now, I wil

Re: TCP Fast Open (RFC7413) for FreeBSD

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 01:30 -0400, Patrick Kelsey wrote: > > > > > On Sep 2, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Rui Paulo wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 21:19 -0400, Patrick Kelsey wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > About two weeks from now, I will be starting work on server-side > > > TCP > > > Fast > >

Re: mbufq-less iwn(4)

oh, remove the mbufq from each driver? Absolutely - go ahead and nuke them all. We need to do that anyway - using an mbufq breaks fragments and leaks mbufs. -a ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-n

[Bug 202667] ipsec broken on i386

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202667 Andrey V. Elsukov changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org |a...@freebsd.org --- Comment #

Re: TCP Fast Open (RFC7413) for FreeBSD

> On 2 Sep 2015, at 02:19, Patrick Kelsey wrote: > > Hi, > > About two weeks from now, I will be starting work on server-side TCP Fast > Open (TFO) support for FreeBSD head and stable/10, with the intention of > having patches up for review by November. This message is an attempt to > uncov