On 01/10/2020 19:56, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 2020-10-01 11:13, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2020 10:52, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 2020-10-01 10:24, Michal Vančo wrote:
> But why is the actual
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250037
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Open
Assignee|b...@freeb
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 2020-10-01 11:13, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
> > On 01/10/2020 10:52, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> On 2020-10-01 10:24, Michal Vančo wrote:
> >>> But why is the actual number of IRQ lines bigger than number of CPU
> >>> c
On 2020-10-01 18:57, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
Do you planed to use more describe irq's name?
The kernel doesn't support more than X number of bytes per name
unfortunately.
--HPS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/ma
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 10:10:42AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 2020-10-01 09:39, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
> > Hi
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> > I have a server with one Mellanox ConnectX-4 adapter and the following
> > CPU configuration (SMT disabled):
> >
> > # dmesg | grep SMP
> >
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248474
--- Comment #31 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to jimp from comment #30)
With ipfw you don't even need to filter on enc pseudo-interface.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248474
--- Comment #30 from j...@netgate.com ---
You can have both route-based and policy-based IPsec active at once but you
cannot filter both at once in the expected manner.
It is not limited to NAT rules, it affects both NAT and firewall rules
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248474
--- Comment #29 from Michael Muenz ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #27)
Indeed, the problem description should be adjusted that "only" NAT via pf is
affected.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
On 2020-10-01 11:13, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
On 01/10/2020 10:52, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 2020-10-01 10:24, Michal Vančo wrote:
But why is the actual number of IRQ lines bigger than number of CPU
cores?
There are some dedicated IRQ's used for firmware management.
Else the d
On 01/10/2020 10:52, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 2020-10-01 10:24, Michal Vančo wrote:
>> But why is the actual number of IRQ lines bigger than number of CPU
>> cores?
>
> There are some dedicated IRQ's used for firmware management.
>
> Else the driver will use the number of online CPU's by def
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238324
MICK745 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||djmichae...@free.fr
--- Comment #15 from
On 2020-10-01 10:24, Michal Vančo wrote:
But why is the actual number of IRQ lines bigger than number of CPU cores?
There are some dedicated IRQ's used for firmware management.
Else the driver will use the number of online CPU's by default as the
number of rings, if the hardware supports it.
On 01/10/2020 10:10, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 2020-10-01 09:39, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
>> Hi
>
> Hi Michal,
>
Thank you for your quick reply.
>> I have a server with one Mellanox ConnectX-4 adapter and the following
>> CPU configuration (SMT disabled):
>>
>> # dmesg | grep SMP
On 2020-10-01 09:39, Michal Vančo via freebsd-net wrote:
Hi
Hi Michal,
I have a server with one Mellanox ConnectX-4 adapter and the following
CPU configuration (SMT disabled):
# dmesg | grep SMP
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 16 CPUs
FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 8 core(s) x 2 ha
Hi
I have a server with one Mellanox ConnectX-4 adapter and the following
CPU configuration (SMT disabled):
# dmesg | grep SMP
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 16 CPUs
FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 8 core(s) x 2 hardware threads
FreeBSD/SMP Online: 2 package(s) x 8 core(s)
What I don't
15 matches
Mail list logo
