https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206456
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--- Comment
All,
I have a curious problem with a lightly loaded pair of pf firewall
running on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE. I'm noticing TCP entries are
disappearing from the state table for no good reason that I can see. The
entry limit is set to 10 and I never see the system go over about
7 entries,
Ok, so, I mostly did this already:
https://github.com/erikarn/netmap-tools/
it has a multi-threaded, multi-queue bridge + ipv4 decap for testing.
-a
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To un
Hi
Yes, this approach working really well on Linux. But I have never tried to
do same on FreeBSD.
I'm using similar approach in dastnetmon abd read data from the network
card in X threads where each thread assigned to physical queue. So for
Linux you should use my custom (based on Intel's drivers
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:58:18PM +, Teleric Team wrote:
> I got a Chelsio T5 520-SO with two ports and I get 2 interfaces for it
> port, cxl and ncxl (cxl0 ncxl0 cxl1 ncxl1). Man page mentions cxl is
> for T5, what about ncxl? Should I get both or is something wrong?
> Which one should I use?
I got a Chelsio T5 520-SO with two ports and I get 2 interfaces for it port,
cxl and ncxl (cxl0 ncxl0 cxl1 ncxl1). Man page mentions cxl is for T5, what
about ncxl? Should I get both or is something wrong? Which one should I use?
(is there any difference?).
Thank you.
_
Hello all,
I have some doubts regarding netmap design direct queue usage.
If open netmap:ix0 I am opening all 0-7 queues. Are those queues FIFO among
themselves? I mean first packeds will be available on netmap:ix0-0 and if
this queue fills up the next packets will be on netmap:ix0-1, and via
net
2016-01-19 14:58 GMT+03:00 Boris Astardzhiev :
> Hello,
>
> I removed the pthread_testcancel() calls and cut the interposing
> stuff from my patch as suggested. I extended the send/recv(2) manpages
> regarding
> the mm calls. Comments and suggestions?
>
>
btw, what is the reason to not make this f
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:58:27PM +0200, Boris Astardzhiev wrote:
+int
+recvmmsg(int s, struct mmsghdr *msgvec, unsigned int vlen, int flags)
+{
+ int i, ret, rcvd;
Shouldn't i and rcvd be unsigned as well ? Shouldn't return value
also be
jt>>
jt>> FBSDprivate_1.0 {
jt>> @@ -1051,4 +1053,6 @@ FBSDprivate_1.0 {
jt>> gssd_syscall;
jt>> __libc_interposing_slot;
jt>> __libc_sigwait;
jt>> + _sendmmsg;
jt>> + _recvmmsg;
jt>> };
jt>
jt>The _ versions need not be exported. Not exporting reduces code size and
jt>i
10 matches
Mail list logo
