Collegues,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:29:49PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> [cc-ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get more opinions]
this good, that you have CC'ed net@, otherwise we would continue
working in parallel without collaboration.
Here is attached patch made in a collaboration by ru, pjd and m
> The server is not telling the client that a packet has been lost.
> The first two ACKs are correct duplicate ACKs, but the remaining
> ACKs coming from he server have window adjustments, so the
> client does not treat them as duplicate ACKs coming from a packet
> loss.
I made a list of ACKs with
> Collegues,
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:29:49PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> L> [cc-ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get more opinions]
>
> this good, that you have CC'ed net@, otherwise we would continue
> working in parallel without collaboration.
It's a pity you didn't read the complete thread,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote:
d> I also mentioned that poll_idle() isn't called from anywhere in the kernel.
d> Thus we have only 2 possible sources for polling: hardclock (per-CPU) and
traps.
poll_idle is a process created on startup, so it is not called from anywhere.
B
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote:
+> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring
+> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays
+> seems to be very elegant.
Overhead? Did you run any benchmarks to prove it?
I find list-version much more e
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:14:50PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
P> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote:
P> +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring
P> +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays
P> +> seems to be very elegant.
P
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote:
> +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring
> +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays
> +> seems to be very elegant.
>
> Overhead? Did you run any benchmarks to prove it?
> I find list-versi
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:31:16PM +0300, dima wrote:
d> We should merge our efforts anyway and both versions
d> should naturally be tested and benchmarked.
Yes, I'll benchmark both patches in next 3-4 days.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
_
on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:20:02 +0900 (JST), Noritoshi Demizu said:
>ack 4195629532 win 5792 (-)<- Original ACK
>ack 4195629532 win 6576 (+784) <- dup ACK (with window update)
>ack 4195629532 win 6576 (0)<- dup ACK
>ack 4195629532 win 7240 (+664)
while i am happy to see interest on having this supported, and while
I understand the excitement in firing the editor and writing code,
i don't think this approach of hacking up some patch that allows
multiple poll* instances to run without panicing the box, or
discussing the performance of lists v
> The Apple machine may be rate limiting their transmissions.
> The Apple is sending only 2 packets per round trip time.
I think (acknowledgment number + advertized window) of ACKs sent by
the FreeBSD machine limits how much data the Mac can inject into the
network.
Regards,
Noritoshi Demizu
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:44:48AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> while i am happy to see interest on having this supported, and while
L> I understand the excitement in firing the editor and writing code,
L> i don't think this approach of hacking up some patch that allows
L> multiple poll* instances
Hello, All.
Natd dumping its core without any additional messages\logs exclude
this
Mar 11 22:31:54 gw kernel: pid 217 (natd), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core
dumped)-/var/log/messages
I`m using following configuration
FreeBSD 5.3-stable
3 interfaces: ed0 to my ISP
rl0-to my internal LAN-1 and LA
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:14:50PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
P> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote:
P> +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring
P> +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays
P> +> seems
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
+> >P> There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of
+> >P> using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have
+> >P> access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields.
+> >
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
+> >P> There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of
+> >P> using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have
+> >P> access tointerface's internal mutex, which
Hello,
This was originally posted to -Questions. I thought it would be a no
brainer and get an immediate response. But I haven't heard from anyone
yet, so I thought I'd post here too.
I have some keybindings on my laptop that allow me to easily start and
stop a pptp connection to my office. T
17 matches
Mail list logo
