Andrew,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:25:59PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
A> It has always bugged me how the vlan code traverses the linked-list for
A> each incoming packet to find the right ifvlan, I have this patch which
A> attempts to fix this.
A>
A> What it does is replace the linear searc
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:51:11PM +0200, Marcin Jessa wrote:
M> It seems like PPPoE stoped working with support for radius on 6.0
M> The log of pppoe and freeradius does not show pppoe attempting to even talk
to the radius server.
M> Additionally this message pops up when enabling pppoed:
M> WARN
Here is my probably final round of tests that I thought could possible
be useful to others.
I have enabled polling on the interfaces and discovered some of the
master secret holy grail sysctls that really make this stuff work.
I now get over 900mbits/sec router performance with polling.
Havin
Here is my probably final round of tests that I thought could possible
be useful to others.
I have enabled polling on the interfaces and discovered some of the
master secret holy grail sysctls that really make this stuff work.
I now get over 900mbits/sec router performance with polling.
Havin
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Although the memory overhead is not noticable on modern i386 and amd64
PCs I don't think that we should waste so much memory. We should keep
in mind the existence of embedded architectures with little memory.
In most cases people use 10 - 30 VLANs. I suggest to use a hash,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:00:54AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:25:59PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> A> It has always bugged me how the vlan code traverses the linked-list for
> A> each incoming packet to find the right ifvlan, I have this patch which
> A> attempts
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:00:54AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:25:59PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> A> It has always bugged me how the vlan code traverses the linked-list for
> A> each incoming packet to find the right ifvlan, I have this patch which
>
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Michael VInce wrote:
Interestingly when testing from the gateway it self (B) direct to server
(C) having 'net.isr.direct=1' slowed down performance to 583mbits/sec
net.isr.direct works to improve performance in many cases because it (a)
reduces latency, and (b) reduces C
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:01:45 +0400
Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:51:11PM +0200, Marcin Jessa wrote:
> M> It seems like PPPoE stoped working with support for radius on 6.0
> M> The log of pppoe and freeradius does not show pppoe attempting to
> M> even talk t
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:19:34PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:00:54AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:25:59PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > A> It has always bugged me how the vlan code traverses the linked-list for
>
dear everybody,
i have encountered a problem big enough for me to
handle.
Actually i am trying to compress the data contained
in the ip packets.
i see that the data to be passed by ip to link layer
output routine is contained in mbuf *m.
Now what i tried to do is I tried to copy the original
m
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:51:00AM +0200, Ragnar Lonn wrote:
> Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> >Although the memory overhead is not noticable on modern i386 and amd64
> >PCs I don't think that we should waste so much memory. We should keep
> >in mind the existence of embedded architectures with little me
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:15:49 +0200
Marcin Jessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:01:45 +0400
> Gleb Smirnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:51:11PM +0200, Marcin Jessa wrote:
> > M> It seems like PPPoE stoped working with support for radius on 6.0
>
Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
Michael VInce wrote:
I reinstalled the netperf to make sure its the latest.
I have also decided to upgrade Server-C (the i386 5.4 box) to 6.0RC1 and
noticed it gave a large improvement of network performance with a SMP
kernel.
As with the network setup ( A --- B
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:31:59PM +, Marcin Jessa wrote:
M> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:51:11PM +0200, Marcin Jessa wrote:
M> > > M> It seems like PPPoE stoped working with support for radius on 6.0
M> > > M> The log of pppoe and freeradius does not show pppoe attempting to
M> > > M> even t
Hello,
I have a number of staff who use pptp links to VPN (Windows to FreeBSD mpd
server) in to the Office. Some times when the link is busy the LCP echos
won't pass over the link quickly enough and the connection will terminate.
Is there anything I can do to prevent this, or at least make it les
Dominic,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:29:19PM +0100, Dominic Marks wrote:
D> server) in to the Office. Some times when the link is busy the LCP echos
D> won't pass over the link quickly enough and the connection will terminate.
D>
D> Is there anything I can do to prevent this, or at least make it
Colleagues,
since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
Do you see a lot of errors in 'netstat -i' output? Does these errors
increase not monotonou
At 10:49 PM +1000 2005-10-20, Michael VInce wrote:
The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am assuming
they are on the best bus available.
In my experience, the terms "Dell" and "best available" very
rarely go together.
Dell has made a name for themselves by shippi
I think that's unfair.
I have a couple of Dell machines and my biggest complaint with them has been
their use of proprietary bolt patterns for their motherboards and similar
tomfoolery, preventing you from migrating their hardware as your needs grow.
This also guarantees that your $75 power suppl
At 9:57 AM -0500 2005-10-20, Karl Denninger wrote:
Other than that, I've been pretty happy with their stuff. Sure beats a lot
of other "PC" vendors out there in terms of reliability, heat management,
BIOS updates, etc.
Have you tried Rackable or IronSystems? I've heard that they've
been
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Michael VInce wrote:
Are you by any chance using PCI NIC's? PCI Bus is limited to somewhere
around 1 Gbit/s. So if you consider; Theoretical maxium = ( 1Gbps -
pci_overhead )
The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am
assuming they are on the best
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:26:31PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:49 PM +1000 2005-10-20, Michael VInce wrote:
> The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am assuming
> they are on the best bus available.
In my experience, the terms "Dell" and "best ava
Chris,
Thanks for the quick response. It looked good, but when I execute each
command, I receive an Error on the following:
ngctl connect sf0: o2m lower many0
Returns: ngctl: send msg: No such file or directory
Did I miss something?
Shawn
From: Chris Dionissopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
R
ngctl connect sf0: o2m lower many0
Returns: ngctl: send msg: No such file or directory
Is just a syntax error. Replace "o2m" with "o2m:" in every "connect"
command (only).
Sorry my fault.
Chris.
http://www.freemail.gr - δ
iI have a RealTek 8169S which works just fine under 5.3-RELEASE. I've
been experimenting with 6.0-RC1 booting from CD. It appears to come up
with no difficulty, but ping fails, and shortly thereafter, I get
"re0: watchdog timeout" in my messages. Although I can't ping other
machines and other ma
Hello,
Is EVENTHANDLER(9) proper way of notification for standalone driver about
network interface attach/detach operations? I've met simple problem in
ef(4), which causes machine freeze in following situation: load NIC driver
-> load if_ef -> unload NIC driver -> some activity with interface.
Alt
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:20:34PM +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is EVENTHANDLER(9) proper way of notification for standalone driver about
> network interface attach/detach operations? I've met simple problem in
> ef(4), which causes machine freeze in following situation: load NIC
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:20:34PM +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is EVENTHANDLER(9) proper way of notification for standalone driver about
> network interface attach/detach operations? I've met simple problem in
> ef(4), which causes machine freeze in following situation: load NIC
Hi!
A few days ago I've managed to setup two IPSec tunnels (3 machines
involved) between FreeBSD 5.4R hosts.
While I do not fully understand all the options and knobs of IPSec, it
was easy to setup (thanks to the handbook guys!).
As the tunnels work properly in the first place, there's one issue
Chris,
Now the traffic is going out all the ports, thanks. Only one issue, is that
it is also being echo'd back the em0 interface. When I put this under a
full GIGABIT load, 6 interfaces feeding back what was just sent them, will
kill my primary em0 interface.
Is there a way to make the ec
hmm, I hate replying to myself
I've just checked another thing:
When disabling pf on both IPSec endpoints (even large) file transfer
works fine.
I'm using pf and altq with cbq.
Removing the pf 'scrub' rules didn't solve it. In the firewall I'll let
gif traffic pass with rules like:
pass qu
Chris,
Ignore the last note. It is working, with the correction you gave me below.
Working Great.
Thanks for all your help.
Shawn
From: Chris Dionissopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Shawn Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Try
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Holm Tiffe wrote:
Hi,
I have a currently big problem with the following setup:
A FreeBSD Box, running 5_STABLE is connected wirh one interface to the
public, with the other to an nated' subnet with private address space.
I need to allow at least one host from inside the
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: PPPoE and Radius on 6.0RC1
Just tested the same setup on 7.0 buil
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 06:02:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Colleagues,
T>
T> since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
T> I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
T>
T> Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
T> Do you se
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:57:21PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Y> The hash code consists of literally a couple of #define's. And the
Y> difference between ng_vlan(4) and vlan(4) is that each ng_vlan node
Y> gets its own instance of the hash table. OTOH, in vlan(4) we need
Y> to decide if the hash ta
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 09:31:15PM +, Shawn Saunders wrote:
S> Chris,
S>
S> Now the traffic is going out all the ports, thanks. Only one issue, is
S> that it is also being echo'd back the em0 interface. When I put this under
S> a full GIGABIT load, 6 interfaces feeding back what was just s
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:30:33AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:57:21PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> Y> The hash code consists of literally a couple of #define's. And the
> Y> difference between ng_vlan(4) and vlan(4) is that each ng_vlan node
> Y> gets its own instance o
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:06:55AM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Y> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:30:33AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Y> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:57:21PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Y> > Y> The hash code consists of literally a couple of #define's. And the
Y> > Y> difference between ng_vl
40 matches
Mail list logo
