On Tue, 2 May 2006, Brian Candler wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to improve the behaviour of the TCP protocol
implementation so that out-of-order reception was acceptable?
Possibly - but if your FreeBSD box is acting as a router
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would it be possible to improve the behaviour of the TCP protocol
> implementation so that out-of-order reception was acceptable?
Possibly - but if your FreeBSD box is acting as a router, and it re-orders
packets in transit to t
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Robert Watson wrote:
Yes -- basically, what this setting does is turn a deferred dispatch of the
protocol level processing into a direct function invocation.
This reminds me of a problem I saw about a year ago, where the number of
entries in the DMA ring was much greater (
Hi,
On 27-Apr-06, at 10:38, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi, Robert,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:54:21PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU
COMMAND
60 root 1 -44 -163 0K 8K WAIT
On 4/27/06, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
>
> >> I missed the original thread, but in answer to the question: if you set
> >> net.isr.direct=1, then FreeBSD 6.x will run the netisr code in the ithread
> >> of the network device driver. This
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
I missed the original thread, but in answer to the question: if you set
net.isr.direct=1, then FreeBSD 6.x will run the netisr code in the ithread
of the network device driver. This will allow the IP forwarding and
related paths in two threads inste
Hi, Robert,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:54:21PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
>
> >> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU COMMAND
> >> 60 root 1 -44 -163 0K 8K WAIT 355.6H 72.17% swi1:
> >>net
> >> 39 ro
