On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, 15:29-0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a plan to support device polling for the em or the bge drivers ?
It is already supported for em(4), see man polling. I was planning to
implement polling for bge(4) if I get free time.
--
Maxim Konovalo
v/em/if_em.c?only_with_tag=RELENG_4
--
Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, 14:50-0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have three Squid machines working together as a cache array.
> I used Dummynet to control the inter-cache bandwidth.
>
> My three squid is 10.12.0.1, 10.12.0.2 and 10.12.0.3
>
> I used the following commands to create pipes in each sq
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, 19:04-0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >uname -a for three machines are:
>
> >FreeBSD squid1.my.com 4.1.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.1.1-RELEASE #0: Thu Mar 27
> 15:47:56 CST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DUMMYNET
> i386
>
> >FreeBSD squid2.my.com 4.1.1-RELEASE Free
I am using kernel PPP, (on ppp0) if it makes any difference.
>
> Am I doing something wrong?
Did you look at /usr/share/examples/pppd/ip-up.sample ?
ip-up worked for me six months ago.
--
Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[E
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, 22:44+0200, Jim Xochellis wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 09:13 PM, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, 16:02+0200, Jim Xochellis wrote:
> >
> >> Hi list,
> >>
> >> I have also posted
ac--; av++; \
- } else \
- (*av)++;\
+ ac--; av++; \
} \
target: \
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, 12:23-, Nate Grey wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2003 18:47, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > Please try an enclosed patch or put a whitespace right after the '('
> > before &#
Try sysctl net.inet.ip.check_interface=0.
--
Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, 06:33+0100, Bjorn Eikeland wrote:
> P? Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:41:26 +0300 (MSK), skrev Maxim Konovalov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Try sysctl net.inet.ip.check_interface=0.
> >
>
> Well that did the trick!
>Thank you very much!
We really
I run top(I guess it's "sendfile buffer allocation"
> status).
man 2 sendfile, man 7 tuning are a good start.
In 5.2 you can monitor sendfile buffers usage via kern.ipc.nsfbufs*
sysctls or netstat(1).
[...]
--
Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
ame source-IP as the
> client used as destination-IP ?
Probably bin/58012 worth to look (Multihomed tftpd enhancement). Yes,
it relies on protocol but still.
[...]
--
Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] maili
d */
goto post_stats;
+#if 0
if (!(BDG_ACTIVE(ifp))) {
/*
* Discard packet if upper layers shouldn't see it because it
@@ -643,6 +644,7 @@
return;
}
}
+#endif
/* Discard packet if interface is not up *
am sure all other *pf*) is able to
process ip opts quite well and personally see no point in this
sysctls. I fail to see a documentation update (inet.4 ?) as well.
It is not clear for me why you ever ask for opinions after commit not
before. Strick "nay" if you care :-)
--
Maxi
.
> users however will not need this. I think the point that is trying
> to be made is that they want the default installation to be more
> secure and those who need these features can simply turn them on.
You mean "more obscure", right? Where net.inet.ip
and me more happy than
> we are with the current situation.
Rate limit is OK. Probably the packet size restrictions is OK too.
Do not think we need a special case for RR.
I hope you are not going to turn off ip fragmentation/reassembling by
default to make SO happy, aren't you?
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
