https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #84 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Cassiano Peixoto from comment #83)
It seems you hit another problem in the libc/stdio. Konstantin produced another
patch for this problem:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/file/data/nthhi3og
On 28/6/17 2:31 am, Youssef GHORBAL wrote:
[...]
Further, I would argue that round robin is not a valid 802.3ad/802.1AX
algorithm, per how it defines a frame distributor:
"This standard does not mandate any particular distribution
algorithm(s); however, any distribution algorithm shall ensure
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #83 from Cassiano Peixoto ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #81)
Eugene and Konstantin,
Bad news, it just stopped working. Eugene i hadn't enabled web server yet. So
it stucked the mpd5 process with patch applied li
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220078
--- Comment #16 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #4)
Andrey, there is no problems with your patch for ipfw. Please commit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
[...]
> Further, I would argue that round robin is not a valid 802.3ad/802.1AX
> algorithm, per how it defines a frame distributor:
>
> "This standard does not mandate any particular distribution
> algorithm(s); however, any distribution algorithm shall ensure that,
> when frames are received by
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #82 from Cassiano Peixoto ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #81)
Humm i see. Maybe Konstantin Belousov could help us :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #81 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Cassiano Peixoto from comment #80)
I cannot commit kernel patches myself as I have no src commit bit. Any src
committed is needed to take a look at least, so I've filled my PRs.
--
Yo
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #80 from Cassiano Peixoto ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #79)
Yes, i did. All my tests were with web server disabled as you requested. Only
with console enabled. I'll run with web server enabled to try the patch.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199096
Eugene Grosbein changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |Feedback Timeout
Sta
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=146037
Eugene Grosbein changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |Feedback Timeout
Sta
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #79 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Cassiano Peixoto from comment #78)
I believe, the libthr patch was for debugging purposes only and is not needed
to fix the problem itself.
Did you test it with web server disabled? If
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Youssef GHORBAL
wrote:
>
> There is nothing in the 802.3ad that mandates stickiness of flows per NIC,
> the only thing explicit is that hash algorithm needs to maintain packet
> order. In this case, strictly speaking, it's : Packets do leave in "order"
> and do
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186114
--- Comment #78 from Cassiano Peixoto ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #77)
Hi guys,
After 8 days working with no issues i think at last it has been fixed. Well
done Eugene :)
I could see libc patch has been committed to 11-S
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 12:54, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
>> Imagine this set up :
>>
>> freebsd host port0 <-> switch 1 <-> linux host port0
>> freebsd host port1 <-> switch 2 <-> linux host port1
>>
>> On the linux box, port 0&1 are enslaved in a bond with a RR algorithm (Round
>> Robin)
>> On
> Imagine this set up :
>
> freebsd host port0 <-> switch 1 <-> linux host port0
> freebsd host port1 <-> switch 2 <-> linux host port1
>
> On the linux box, port 0&1 are enslaved in a bond with a RR algorithm (Round
> Robin)
> On the freebsd box, port 0&1 are enslaved in a lagg.
>
> switchs 1&
Imagine this set up :
freebsd host port0 <-> switch 1 <-> linux host port0
freebsd host port1 <-> switch 2 <-> linux host port1
On the linux box, port 0&1 are enslaved in a bond with a RR algorithm (Round
Robin)
On the freebsd box, port 0&1 are enslaved in a lagg.
switchs 1&2 are configured for
[...]
>>I've read about netisr work and I was under the impression that even
>> if it's SMP enabled it was made to keep prorocol ordering.
>>
>>What's the expected behaviour in this scenario on the netisr side ?
>>How can I push the investigation further ?
>
> I think yo
17 matches
Mail list logo
