On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:41:04PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > That's a cool idea.. haven't looked at NetBSD but am imagining the
> > mbufs would be linked in a 'ring'. This works because you never
> > care how many references are, just whether there's one or more than
> > one, and this is
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:10:41AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020712 00:00] wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
> > > That's true, but could someone explain how one can safely and
> > > effeciently manipulate such a
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:45:07AM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> [ ... Description of modifying a bidrectional ring ... ]
>
> So I guess that what we're dealing with isn't really a
> "monodirectional" ring. Right?
Yep. =)
--
Jonathan Mini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.freebsd.org/
To Un
On 2002-07-11 17:12 +, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 01:56:08PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > example: userland does an 8KB write, in the old case this requires
> > 4 clusters, with the new one you end up using 4 clusters and stuff
> > the remaining 16 bytes in a regular mbuf,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 04:26:53AM -0700, Jon Mini wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:41:04PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > That's a cool idea.. haven't looked at NetBSD but am imagining the
> > > mbufs would be linked in a 'ring'. This works because you never
> > > care how many referenc
On 2002-07-12 07:45 +, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> The jist of the problem is that when you want to say, remove yourself
> from the list, you have to:
>
> 1) your "next"'s back pointer to your "back" pointer
> 2) your "Prev"'s next pointer to your "next" pointer
>
> So that's two operations but for
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Lemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >
> >My guess is that doing hw checksum by the nic could be the
> issue. This is
> >the only real difference I can see at present.
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
> Test your theory. Turn off hardware checksums with 'ifcon
I have a system I run FreeBSD 4.5-release on. The purpose of this system is
to run Snort (IDS).
The current system is a Compaq Proliant 1850R, have also tried on a Compaq
Proliant 1600R.
Both systems are SMP with dual processors, > 256m ram, and Compaq Smart Array
controller to handle raid i
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:06:13AM -0400, Cambria, Mike wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jonathan Lemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >
> > >My guess is that doing hw checksum by the nic could be the
> > issue. This is
> > >the only real difference I can see at present.
> > >
>
Actually, I seem to remember that the ifconfig output only shows
the driver's capabilities, not the actual setting.
cheers
luigi
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:00:48PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:06:13AM -0400, Cambria, Mike wrote:
> > > -Original
No - ifconfig shows the actual settings. 'ifconfig -m' will show
both the configured settings and the driver capability list.
--
Jonathan
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:43:24AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Actually, I seem to remember that the ifconfig output only shows
> the driver's capabilities,
freebsd wrote:
>
> I have a system I run FreeBSD 4.5-release on. The purpose of this system is
> to run Snort (IDS).
>
> The current system is a Compaq Proliant 1850R, have also tried on a Compaq
> Proliant 1600R.
>
> Both systems are SMP with dual processors, > 256m ram, and Compaq Smart Arra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Right now, in -CURRENT, there is this hack that I introduced that
> basically just allocates a ref. counter for external buffers attached
> to mbufs with malloc(9). What this means is that if you do something
>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2002-07-12 07:45 +, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> >
> > So I guess that what we're dealing with isn't really a
> > "monodirectional" ring. Right?
>
> No it isn't. It looks more like the "dining philosophers" problem.
> But that problem's soluti
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:03:45AM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
> I've been out of town and I realize I'm coming into this thread late
> and that it has evolved a bit. But I still think it's worthwhile to
> point out a very big problem with the idea of putting the reference
> count at the end of e
> #define XL905B_CSUM_FEATURES0
This worked. dsniff is behaving just fine now.
Next I'll try to track down if this is this a libnet problem, libnids
problem or dsniff problem, so I know which project I need to inform.
Thanks,
MikeC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Cambria, Mike wrote:
:
:> #define XL905B_CSUM_FEATURES0
:
:This worked. dsniff is behaving just fine now.
:
:Next I'll try to track down if this is this a libnet problem, libnids
:problem or dsniff problem, so I know which project I need to inform.
IIRC, the proble
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew R. Reiter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> :Next I'll try to track down if this is this a libnet problem, libnids
> :problem or dsniff problem, so I know which project I need to inform.
>
> IIRC, the problem is BPF b/c it doesn't know the checksum since the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've thought about the cache issue with regards to the ref. counts
> before, actually, and initially, I also thought the exact same thing
> as you bring up here. However, there are a few things you need to
> re
Julian Elischer writes:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
> > On 2002-07-12 07:45 +, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > >
> > > So I guess that what we're dealing with isn't really a
> > > "monodirectional" ring. Right?
> >
> > No it isn't. It looks more like the "di
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 06:55:37PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
[...]
FWIW, BSD/OS also does similar to -STABLE.
[...]
> I agree with John about where to put the refcnts: I think we should
> have a big hunk of memory for the refcnts like in -stable. My
> understanding is that the larger virtu
Bosko Milekic writes:
<...>
> If we decide to allocate jumbo bufs from their own seperate map as
> well then we have no wastage for the counters for clusters if we keep
> them in a few pages, like in -STABLE, and it should all work out fine.
That sounds good.
> For the jumbo bufs I
> Julian Elischer writes:
> >
> >
> > Te stuff under consideration originally came from OSF/1 which became
> > true-64
> >
> > that was heavily SMP
> > can anyone find out what they did?
>
> From looking at a Tru64 5.1 header file, it looks like they do per-ext
> locking and declare an MBUF
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 01:30:53AM +0200, Julian Stacey wrote:
> Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Since I gave my FreeBSD-4.5-Release gateway a new sendmail.cf today,
> I've been getting both these in my headers:
> Received: from jhs.muc.de (520006753247-0001@[217.235.121.155])
>by fmr
24 matches
Mail list logo
