Andre, good day.
Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 08:57:47AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >Seems like it is the effect of the SS_NOFDREF check in the
> >netinet/tcp_input.c, at least it is present in the rev. 1.281.2.5.
> >See the post
> >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-July/074
Mike Karels wrote:
A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to think more
about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0
In syncache
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
> [Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
> >
> >On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> I missed Robert Watson's start
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
>
>On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
I missed Robert Watson's start of thread, so I'm jumping in here
with a question.
>> Dear al
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Chuck, Julian, good day.
Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
% tcpdump -nS -r IE7.pcap
reading from file IE7.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
18:24:41.313890 IP 172.28.15.82.3128 > 10.251.22.29.1121: . ack 1573162290 win
32120
18:24:41.313995
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
I missed Robert Watson's start of thread, so I'm ju
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:48:21 +0100 (BST) Robert Watson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>> [Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> [ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
>>>
>>
Stephen Clark wrote:
Mike Karels wrote:
A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to
think more about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines:
While testing out the ixgbe driver we've observed this failure in the stack
code, here is the info:
The test engineer is using iperf, typically with 16 threads. If the
driver is using
either legacy or MSI interrupts we will see broken pipes, in dmesg its
due to sonewconn() failing in syncache_soc
> There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to
> a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames
> should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This
> could cause confusion when people plug jumbo capable devices in with
> hardw
Hello,
I've got a FreeBSD 6.2 machine now behind a squid nontransparent
authenticating proxy. The proxy use to be transparent and didn't require
authentication, those requirements now changed, so it now utilizes a
dedicated ip and basic authentication. This is fine for the machine it's on,
0n Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:01:11PM -0400, Dave wrote:
>I've got a FreeBSD 6.2 machine now behind a squid nontransparent
>authenticating proxy. The proxy use to be transparent and didn't require
>authentication, those requirements now changed, so it now utilizes a
>dedicated
Mike Karels wrote:
There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to
a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames
should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This
could cause confusion when people plug jumbo capable devices in w
13 matches
Mail list logo
