On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 06/03/12 15:18, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Lawrence Stewart
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/31/12 13:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> [snip]
I used SIFTR at the suggestion of Lawrence Stewart who heade
On 06/03/12 15:18, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 05/31/12 13:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
[snip]
I used SIFTR at the suggestion of Lawrence Stewart who headed the
project to bring plugable congestion algorithms to FreeBSD and found
really odd con
On 06/03/12 01:18, Kevin Oberman wrote:
What can I say but that you are right. When I looked at the interface
stats I found that the link overflow drops were through the roof! This
confuses me a bit since the traffic is outbound and I woudl assume
Indeed, link overflow is incoming traffic that
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 05/31/12 13:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I used SIFTR at the suggestion of Lawrence Stewart who headed the
>>
>> project to bring plugable congestion algorithms to FreeBSD and found
>> really odd congestion behavior. First, I
On 05/31/12 13:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
[snip]
I used SIFTR at the suggestion of Lawrence Stewart who headed the
project to bring plugable congestion algorithms to FreeBSD and found
really odd congestion behavior. First, I do see a triple ACK, but the
congestion window suddenly drops from 73K to
On 05/31/12 13:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
On 05/24/12 18:55, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This is,of course, on a 10G interface. On 7.3 there is little
Hi Kevin,
What you're seeing looks almost like a checksum is bad, or
there is some other
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> On 05/24/12 18:55, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>>
>> This is,of course, on a 10G interface. On 7.3 there is little
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
> What you're seeing looks almost like a checksum is bad, or
> there is some other packet damage. Do you see
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> On 05/24/12 18:55, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>>
>> This is,of course, on a 10G interface. On 7.3 there is little
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
> What you're seeing looks almost like a checksum is bad, or
> there is some other packet damage. Do you see
On 05/24/12 18:55, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This is,of course, on a 10G interface. On 7.3 there is little
Hi Kevin,
What you're seeing looks almost like a checksum is bad, or
there is some other packet damage. Do you see any
error counters increasing if you run netstat -s before
and after the
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
wrote:
> On 24. May 2012, at 22:55 , Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> When we set the ToS bits for less than best effort (also called
>> scavenger) on packets (ToS=32), performance on FreeBSD 8.2 is
>> terrible. It was as good as best effort on FreeBSD 7.3
On 24. May 2012, at 22:55 , Kevin Oberman wrote:
> When we set the ToS bits for less than best effort (also called
> scavenger) on packets (ToS=32), performance on FreeBSD 8.2 is
> terrible. It was as good as best effort on FreeBSD 7.3 (assuming no
> congestion). I will look into what 9 does, but
When we set the ToS bits for less than best effort (also called
scavenger) on packets (ToS=32), performance on FreeBSD 8.2 is
terrible. It was as good as best effort on FreeBSD 7.3 (assuming no
congestion). I will look into what 9 does, but does anyone have an
idea of why 8.2 behaves so badly when
12 matches
Mail list logo
