Decreasing buf_num to 32768 eliminated the allocation failure.
Joe Buehler
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Vincenzo Maffione wrote:
> In general netmap adapters (i.e. netmap ports) may support
> NS_MOREFRAG. But in practice this is mainly supported on VALE ports.
> So if you don't want to add the missing support by yourself you can
> simply change the netmap buffer size by tuning the sysctl
> dev.net
Hi,
In general netmap adapters (i.e. netmap ports) may support NS_MOREFRAG.
But in practice this is mainly supported on VALE ports.
So if you don't want to add the missing support by yourself you can simply
change the netmap buffer size by tuning the sysctl dev.netmap.buf_size, and
increase it to
I understand. My point was simply to make sure your performance problems
here are not netmap's fault.
Cheers,
Vincenzo
2017-11-07 18:25 GMT+01:00 Joe Buehler :
> I believe the frame drop is due to the nature of my KVM setup. There
> are large latencies in processing incoming frames due to the
Does NS_MOREFRAG work when using netmap with network adaptors (e.g.
virtio_net)?
I need to send and receive large frames -- 9600 bytes -- but the netmap
buffer size is only 2048.
Joe Buehler
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd
I believe the frame drop is due to the nature of my KVM setup. There
are large latencies in processing incoming frames due to the vagaries of
the LINUX kernel. Moving to the RT kernel helped, host tuning is also
needed to eliminate large latencies in processing frames. There is good
information
If you'd like a copy, I'm pretty sure I can provide one.
For context, I found this behaviour because I was tracing a BGP problem
with an exchange's Route Server (which I believe is a cisco
something-or-other). AFAICT, a software upgrade corrected that problem,
but the strange window behavior rema
On 11/07/2017 07:20, K. Macy wrote:
> It would help if you told us which OS version you're using. Is this on
> 11.x or HEAD?
>
Sorry, I forgot.
It's head, r325353 at present.
I've been seeing this at least since this summer, I can say r322649 also
showed the problem, but I can't pinpoint it wit
