Also make sure that the route for this specific test isn't going out on
the Internet and coming back in at your outside link speed of
around117kbits/sec?
I had a similar problem once where I had 3 boxes hooked up and the
speeds were blistering fast for 2 tests but the third test was horrid slo
Hey all.
I have been googling around the Internet for information about IPSEC and
FAST_IPSEC for freebsd on the Internet and wondered what gives best
performance
when I came across this http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/netperf/
It has some nice graphs / figures on performance of IPSEC and FAST_IPS
Just out of interest has any one got serial console to work with this
IPMI stuff?
I was looking at regular 9pin serial alternatives since Dell machines
normally only have 1 serial port and I prefer 2.
Regards,
Mike
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:26:16PM -0800, Jeff wrote:
I
Yeah I hooked up 5.3 BSD box with to a big mobile phone companies
$60,000 Cisco VPN piece of equipment, I got Cisco cert my self but I
prefer FreeBSD :)
Used Racoon/ipsec tools and FastIPSec compiled into the kernel.
IPs are spoofed ,but just to give you the idea.
Mar 31 16:02:54 mord racoon: IN
Hey all,
I have created a VPN setup script for FreeBSD, check it out here
http://roq.com/projects/vpnsetup/index.html
http://www.roq.com/projects/vpnsetup/vpnsetup.pl
Its still in its testing phase but as far as I can see its reasonably
complete.
If any one tries it out I would appreciate feed ba
Yeah,
Does any one know if some one is going to add ipsec-tools to the ports
tree?
Cheers,
Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Thu, 12 May 2005 05:25:24 + (UTC),
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Qing Li wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to volunteer for
Tasks to updat
Hey all,
I been doing some network benchmarking using netperf and just simple
'fetch' on a new network setup to make sure I am getting the most out of
the router and servers, I thought I would post some results in case
some one can help me with my problems or if others are just interested
to
Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Michael VInce wrote:
I been doing some network benchmarking using netperf and just simple
'fetch' on a new network setup to make sure I am getting the most out
of the router and servers, I thought I would post some results in
case some on
nce with the right sysctls.
Needs more testing but it appears using AMD64 FreeBSD might be better
then i386 for Apache2 network performance on SMP kernels.
Single interface speeds tests from the router with polling enabled and
with 'net.isr.direct=1' appears to affect performance.
Regards
nce with the right sysctls.
Needs more testing but it appears using AMD64 FreeBSD might be better
then i386 for Apache2 network performance on SMP kernels.
Single interface speeds tests from the router with polling enabled and
with 'net.isr.direct=1' appears to affect performance.
Regards
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
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
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
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
inc
Try sending different sized pings or other packet size control utils to
really make sure its not MTU related.
Maybe there is an upstream router thats blocking ICMP fragment packets,
have you ever seen them? try forcing the creation of some.
Mike
Volker wrote:
Still having the same problem wi
he
fragmented packets coming in properly.
If that's a reliable check for MTU than the problem should not be MTU
related. Is there any other way to check MTU problems by using `ping'?
Thanks,
Volker
On 2005-10-22 20:16, Michael VInce wrote:
Try sending different sized pings or ot
Here is my second round of my non scientific benchmarking and tests, I
hope this is useful.
I been having fun benchmarking these machines but I am starting to get
sick of it as well :) but I find it important to know that things are
going to work right when they are launched to do their real wor
I just have to point out that below I made a statement that proved I
should of gone to bed earlier instead of doing benchmarks :). The 901
http States and ssh state have nothing to do with each other as there on
different pf rules.
Mike
Michael VInce wrote:
I did watch the gateway (B) pf
dennis binder wrote:
hello,
i'm trying to get a wlan card WG511T from netgear to work
and connect to the internet via an accesspoint.
The accesspoint has an SSID= "WLAN" and provides DHCP.
dmesg bings up the following:
ath0: mem 0x8800-0x8800 irq 9 at device 0.0 on
cardbus0
ath0: mac
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:54:49PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
On 23-Nov-2005 Kris Kennaway wrote:
I am seeing the em driver undergoing an interrupt storm whenever the
amr driver receives interrupts. In this case I was running newfs on
the amr array and em0 was not
Scott Long wrote:
Michael Vince wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:54:49PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
On 23-Nov-2005 Kris Kennaway wrote:
I am seeing the em driver undergoing an interrupt storm whenever the
amr driver receives interrupts. In this case I was
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Markus Oestreicher wrote:
Currently running a few routers on 5-STABLE I have read the
recent changes in the network stack with interest.
You should run 6.0R. It contains many improvements over 5-STABLE.
A few questions come to my mind:
- Can a machine tha
Zongsheng Zhang wrote:
Hi, *,
For testing throughput of a TCP connection, the following topology is used:
Host-A ---GB Ethernet--- Dummynet ---GB Ethernet--- Host-B
Host-A/B use FreeBSD v6.0. Sysctl parameters of Host-A/B are:
kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
net.i
Jon Otterholm wrote:
Hi!
What is there to gain in performance choosing AMD64 on a Dell PE1850
(Xeon EMT64) when used as router?
/Jon
I have one running under Amd64 FreeBSD.
When polling is enabled I do get transfer speeds of up to
112megabytes/sec, the only real down side as far as I am
On FreeBSD amd64 if you compile in FAST_IPSEC and even regular IPSEC and
do something like run setkey you get a panic.
VPN on AMD64 FreeBSD has never worked.
Mike
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:38:02PM +1100, Michael Vince wrote:
M> >What is there to gain in perfo
I use netperf which is a pure network traffic tester I also just use
basic 'ab/apache' tests which would also test HD/IO if getting large files.
For the 'em' driver I have seen some posts/cvs commit updates to the
driver saying it now works better without polling then with polling. I
think this
Hey all.
I have been trying to setup a VPN between 2 FreeBSD hosts, but I can't
get any IKE exchange activity via ipsec tools happening.
I used this script http://thebeastie.org/projects/vpnsetup/vpnsetup.pl
which I created for my self to help me remember all the knobs, its been
about a year
Brian Candler wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:43:54PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
I have setup the GRE tunneling and that is working fine doing pings and
tracerts when I disable ipsec and ipsec-tools, its just the encryption
side thats the problem.
Ah, I guess this means you&#x
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_ipsec or is it just
for the other ipsec?
Cheers,
Mike
VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with
David DeSimone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Candler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I guess this means you're following the instructions in the
FreeBSD handbook, which last time I looked gave a most bizarre and
unnecessary way of setting up IPSEC (GIF tunneling
David DeSimone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The main reason to use IPSEC tunnel mode and avoid GIF is that such
a config is interoperable with other IPSEC implementations, and thus
is much more useful in the real
David DeSimone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm... In examining my kernel configuration I found these options:
options IPSEC
options IPSEC_ESP
options IPSEC_DEBUG
# options IPSEC_FILTERGIF
# opt
David DeSimone wrote:
- --
David DeSimone == Network Admin == [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I got it going!
Its working like a dream now.
I don't have a for sure reason why it wasn't working but my best guess
is it was one that actually boiled down to a silly mistake as you suggested.
I feel quite si
JICUDN, I have been using nc,dd and systat to check TCP performance on
my servers, the good thing about it is it requires little setup and
gives results fast.
For example on host A start the nc server.
nc -4kl 3000 > /dev/null
Then start another one on hostb sending data via nc from /dev/zero
c
34 matches
Mail list logo
