I am the manager of the kernel group at Sitara Networks and we have tested
both Netgear and Intel GigE cards. The Tigon based Netgear card is not as
good as the Intel 543 based card. The Tigon chip maxes out at 200k
packets/second. The Intel 543 does better by about 30%.
Charles Richmond
Or
Hi all,
I've been trying to get an IPSec tunneling VPN between two boxes working
without much success. I've read the FAQs and HOWTOs on www.freebsd.org,
www.freebsddiary.org, www.daemonnews.org and www.kame.net and they all have
helped me get closer to where I want to be, but I'm still missing s
Howdy!
I am interested in tuning UDP for NFS over a 100Mbs LAN.
Specifically, to tune UDP, what are guidelines/restrictions for
setting the sysclt variables
net.inet.udp.maxdgram
net.inet.udp.recvspace
I assume that increasing both of these wil
< said:
> net.inet.udp.maxdgram
> net.inet.udp.recvspace
> I assume that increasing both of these will improve performance.
Neither of these have any impact on UDP performance. In fact, there
really are no UDP performance parameters to be tweaked; the UDP
protocol doesn't hav
* Steve Shorter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010831 12:14] wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I am interested in tuning UDP for NFS over a 100Mbs LAN.
>
> Specifically, to tune UDP, what are guidelines/restrictions for
> setting the sysclt variables
>
> net.inet.udp.maxdgram
>
> net.inet.udp.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Using UDP is usually a bad idea, I would use tcp, I find that these
> flags make for a decent mount point that's quite fast:
> rw,tcp,intr,nfsv3,-w=32768,-r=32768
FreeBSD's "src/etc/amd.map" file still has "vers=2
* John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010831 15:03] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Using UDP is usually a bad idea, I would use tcp, I find that these
> > flags make for a decent mount point that's quite fast:
> > rw,tcp,intr,nfsv3,
Howdy!
There is a reference to a networking code bug in 4.3 RELEASE on
http://www.daemonnews.org/200108/benchmark.html
in the footnote at the bottom.
It also references a patch. I can find no other information about
this issue. Can someone point me to the patch or oth
>By the way, RFC2893 has the following text:
(snip)
>Thus, people would say that KAME (FreeBSD) is not compliant to RFC
>2893.
i guess you did not check the original question.
itojun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Hackers,
Attached some patches that implements device cloning
(with devfs(5) support) for tap(4). The implementation is based
on resource manager (see tun(4) and gif(4)).
Brooks Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) took a quick
look at the patch and seems has no objection. Please review,
10 matches
Mail list logo