Hi,
Recently there was a culomn in byte.com by Moshe Bar, and his tests seemed
to show that FreeBSD-4.1.1 could still beat the Linux 2.4.0 kernel. The
test machine was a 2-way SMP machine, running the a giant locked
FreeBSD-4.1.1 kernel and also a fine-locked 2.4.0 Linux kernel. Here's the
link:
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR PURCHASING
YOUR LASER PRINTER SUPPLIES
VORTEX SUPPLIES
-SPECIALS OF THE DAY ON LASER TONER SUPPLIES AT DISCOUNT PRICES--
LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES
COPIER AND FAX CARTRIDGES
WE ARE -->THE<-- PLACE TO BUY YOUR T
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > I'm connected through cable to the 'Net, and the provider I go
> > through, it appears, somehow has it setup that if I change nics, I hvae a
> > bugger of a time re-acquiring a lease ...
>
> I presume dhclient is what you use to get your IP address
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>I can confirm Linux 2.4 TCP/IP is faster than FreeBSD, they have
>dynamic tuned TCP window, unlike we have a fixed max TCP window
>set in SYSCTL. they have SACK and FACK, it is better in high speed line
>than FreeBSD, it is also multi-threaded, better on
The driver available at
http://www.otdel-1.org/nms/tr/ttr.tar.gz
One also need orm driver submitted as kern/22078.
It available also at
http://www.otdel-1.org/nms/tr/orm.tar.gz
Installation for both drivers:
Drivers where developed under 4.2-STABLE, but should run
under -CURRE
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 02:21:24PM +0530, Ashutosh S. Rajekar wrote:
> [FreeBSD TCP/IP is faster than Linux TCP/IP in Benchmark X]
> > [Linux TCP/IP is faster than FreeBSD TCP/IP in Benchmark Y]
There are lies, statistics, and benchmarks. And then there are the
conclusions based on them. The con
< said:
>> This is perfectly natural. TCP will generate these messages whenever
>> its retransmission timer goes off; they should correlate with packet
>> losses.
> Is it also natural that I cannot ftp from the box to anywhere
> (eg. ftp.cdrom.com)?
One goes in hand with the other. Your TCP
I've heard folklore that power-cycling the cable-modem works -
apparently it's the thing that remembers the MAC.
Barney Wolff
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:55:14AM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>
> > > I'm connected through cable to the 'Net, and the
Hi,
I noticed that after upgrading to 4-BETA something goes wrong with ip
forwarding via ppp(8). I have a FreeBSD box (A) connected to Internet
via network interface and this system also has a modem for dial-in and
backup dial-up connection. Sometimes I need to route through this
modem traffic to
> Yes, we do. In fact, the difference between FreeBSD and Linux is
> greater
> than 2x. On equivalent processors, we demonstrated 1900 polygraph
> req/sec
> on FreeBSD 4.2 and 720 polygraph req/sec on a 2.2.14 Linux kernel. It's
> also worth mentioning that the response time for FreeBSD at 1900
Right! A stupid dial-up connection I wasn't thinking of
-Original Message-
From: Ruslan Ermilov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 08:32
To: Peter Blok; Garrett Wollman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 4.3-BETA netmask problem
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:45:12PM +0
Jonathan Graehl wrote:
>
> What would it take to get Linus to give the nod to an implementation conforming
> to the kqueue API? I remember him saying that he only wanted it to work for
> file descriptors, and to only allow one kqueue per process - neither of which I
> agree with. The abstractio
Hi,
I have a 3com 3CXFE575CT pcmcia network card and need some help having
it recongnized on FreeBSD 4.2 on a Toshiba Tecra 8100. During the install, I
picked the default address for the card, and irq 11. At which time the link
light appeared for the card ( but did not make the usual "beep"
IIRC, this is a cardbus card. Those are only supported in current,
not 4.x. Get a cheap 16-bit pcmcia, for now.
Barney Wolff
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:00:07PM -0500, Satish Sambandham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 3com 3CXFE575CT pcmcia network card and need some help having
> it recongnized o
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:02:10 -0500,
> "David E. Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Why is routing done via the ::1 and 127.0.0.1 network addresses? I notice
> for "normal" interfaces it is bound directly to "link#2" and such.
It's just a characteristic (or ristriction if you want to
15 matches
Mail list logo
