Hello,
I have 2 boxes with FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE/amd64 and "Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
Connection 7.4.2" NIC's directly connected to each other. I noticed strange
problem - I'm loosing small UDP packets under high load. I've tried to test it
with iperf and got the following:
---
vd@v0s4:~ % ipe
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Vaidas Damoševičius wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have 2 boxes with FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE/amd64 and "Intel(R) PRO/1000
> Network Connection 7.4.2" NIC's directly connected to each other. I noticed
> strange problem - I'm loosing small UDP packets under high load. I've trie
It's not cabling problem :)
Another example with -b and -i :
vd@v0s4:~ % iperf3 -u -c 1.2.3.4 -i4 -b1000m -P1
Connecting to host 1.2.3.4, port 5201
[ 4] local 1.2.3.3 port 10672 connected to 1.2.3.4 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-4.00
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Vaidas Damoševičius wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hi,
>
> I have 2 boxes with FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE/amd64 and "Intel(R) PRO/1000
> Network Connection 7.4.2" NIC's directly connected to each other. I noticed
> strange problem - I'm loosing small UDP packets under high lo
If I start freeradius under high load, packets doesn't reach the destination -
on sender side I see packets passing out (with tcpdump), on receiver side
tcpdump "see" only part of these packets - some of them are missing.
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 11:49, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar
Hello,
Yes indeed, it has already been fixed!
However, the second point seems to be still here...
Regards,
Emeric
- Mail original -
De: "Hans Petter Selasky"
À: "Emeric POUPON" , "freebsd-net"
Envoyé: Jeudi 19 Mars 2015 13:54:33
Objet: Re: Fragment questions
On 03/19/15 12:38, Emeri
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Hello,
Yes indeed, it has already been fixed!
However, the second point seems to be still here...
Regards,
Emeric
Can you suggest a patch for the second issue?
--HPS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing lis
Hi,
While reading through a previous comment on this list about fragments
I've noticed that mbuf tags aren't being copied from the leading
fragment (header) to the subsequent fragment packets. In other words,
one would expect that all fragments of a packet are carrying the same
tags that were
On 03/20/15 16:18, Karim Fodil-Lemelin wrote:
Hi,
While reading through a previous comment on this list about fragments
I've noticed that mbuf tags aren't being copied from the leading
fragment (header) to the subsequent fragment packets. In other words,
one would expect that all fragments of a
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use randomized
id.
> In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id.
Will using a mutex or an atomic macro fix this issue when incrementing
the V_ip_id ?
--HPS
___
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
>>
>> - in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use
>> randomized id.
>
>> In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id.
>
> Will using a mutex or an atom
I am using 10.1-RELEASE on a SunFire X4500 (thumper). It has 4 em devices, of
which only the first two work due to a resource failure:
em0: port 0xcc00-0xcc3f mem
0xfdae-0xfdaf irq 52 at device 1.0 on pci7
em0: Ethernet address: 00:14:4f:21:09:94
em1: port 0xc800-0xc83f mem
0xfdac0
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use
randomized id.
In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id.
On 20 March 2015 at 11:56, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do "htons(V_ip_id++))" if we do not use
random
On 2015-03-20 1:57 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 03/20/15 16:18, Karim Fodil-Lemelin wrote:
Hi,
While reading through a previous comment on this list about fragments
I've noticed that mbuf tags aren't being copied from the leading
fragment (header) to the subsequent fragment packets. In oth
On 20/03/2015 10:42, Vaidas Damoševičius wrote:
> It's not cabling problem :)
>
> Another example with -b and -i :
>
> vd@v0s4:~ % iperf3 -u -c 1.2.3.4 -i4 -b1000m -P1
> Connecting to host 1.2.3.4, port 5201
> [ 4] local 1.2.3.3 port 10672 connected to 1.2.3.4 port 5201
> [ ID] Interval
I'm confused by the documentation I've found on host stack access using netmap.
The documentation says:
"Packets generated by the host stack are extracted from the mbufs and stored in
the slots of an input ring, similar to those used for traffic coming from the
network. Packets destined to the h
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Willem Jan Withagen
wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 10:42, Vaidas Damoševičius wrote:
> > It's not cabling problem :)
> >
> > Another example with -b and -i :
> >
> > vd@v0s4:~ % iperf3 -u -c 1.2.3.4 -i4 -b1000m -P1
> > Connecting to host 1.2.3.4, port 5201
> > [ 4] local
18 matches
Mail list logo
