Hi Luigi,
glad to see you :)
I just implement the datapath of the switch (base on openflow 1.0)
For the basis, a FreeBSD act as the switch
typical topo: (there should be a controller link with the switch, we
currently ignore it)
host1[eth0] [em0]switch[em1] --- [eth0]host2
Hi Hans,
I saw the discussion about TSO, but the GSO is a software
implementation unrelated with the hardware.
Furthermore, if the TSO is enabled (and supported by the NIC), the GSO is
not executed, because is useless.
After the execution of the GSO, the packets, that are passed to the device
driv
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Stefano Garzarella <
stefanogarzare...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the discussion about TSO, but the GSO is a software
> implementation unrelated with the hardware.
> Furthermore, if the TSO is enabled (and supported by the NIC), the GSO is
> not executed, because is
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> Much of the advantage of TSO comes from crossing the network stack only
> once per (large) segment instead of once per 1500-byte frame.
> GSO does the same both for segmentation (TCP) and fragmentation (UDP)
> by doing these operations a
On 2014-09-15 07:55, Bryan Venteicher wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:42 PM, wrote:
All,
I'm seeing some performance problems with a slowish VPN connection
behind
a fast gateway, the setup looks like this:
|--|
|-|
|client (
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193053
--- Comment #4 from Eric Joyner ---
Why do you believe the third change is necessary? Is there a reason the extra
code in the que_task tasklet must run in the legacy tx case?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee fo
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193053
--- Comment #5 from ncrog...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Eric Joyner from comment #4)
> Why do you believe the third change is necessary? Is there a reason the
> extra code in the que_task tasklet must run in the legacy tx case?
Because of t
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193053
--- Comment #6 from Eric Joyner ---
You didn't try a kernel build with the newer driver that I posted?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193053
--- Comment #7 from ncrog...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Eric Joyner from comment #6)
> You didn't try a kernel build with the newer driver that I posted?
I have not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
