bind9 + host command issue in FreeBSD-5.4

Hello all! I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss this issue but I am experiencing strange behaviour with bind9 + host command with some domains that bind are _not_ authoritative as the following example: # uname -a FreeBSD server2.mydomain.com.br 5.4-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE #0:

Re: bind9 + host command issue in FreeBSD-5.4

Hi Doug, first of all I want to thank you for your reply. The domain I referred before belongs to a bank in Brazil and usually it's hard to get anything from those guys so I've found a workaround and put their 'MX' IP in our mailertable and now it worked fine. Also, I've tried many things like:

Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Hello all! We have a machine working as a router and bandwidth limiter for our network. It routes the traffic through two 'bge' interfaces utilizing only public IPs. No NAT is used. We only have IPFW rules for traffic shaping by MAC addresses. It works fine, but we have been experiencing high late

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Hi Lee, I got excited, but... surprise! ../../../kern/kern_poll.c:46:2: #error DEVICE_POLLING is not compatible with SMP mkdep: compile failed *** Error code 1 :( Thanks anyway! > Hi, > > Try using device polling to reduce the number of interrupts. > > Add this to your kernel: > options

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Hello. I did that and compiled the kernel. Then I restarted the system and enabled sysctl kern.polling.enable=1 It seems that it has no effect in the system. Maybe bge driver doesn't like polling? At this moment, I'm getting more than 50% interrupts and 20% packets lost. I also disabled HT in BI

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Hello! Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At this moment, I'm getting more than 50% interrupts and 20% packets lost. you must have something very basic done the wrong way. > Hope so. So I can fix and learn from it! I would suggest to upgrade that box to 6.1. We tri

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Ferdinand Goldmann wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I did that and compiled the kernel. Then I restarted the system and enabled sysctl kern.polling.enable=1 It seems that it has no effect in the system. Maybe bge driver doesn't like polling? At least from a quick glance in the polling

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Julian Elischer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At this moment, I'm getting more than 50% interrupts and 20% packets lost. you must have something very basic done the wrong way. > Hope so. So I can fix and learn from it!

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Hello. I think I should give some 'real world' examples. /etc/rc.firewall: [Ss][Hh][Aa][Pp][Ee][Rr]) setup_loopback . /etc/rc.shaper ${fwcmd} add 65000 pass all from any to any ;; /etc/rc.shaper: ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} pipe 2 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} add pipe 1

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

I see that. But if I got this right, I cannot set up speeds individually. We have different speeds for each host. Thanks for your time. > On 2006-05-01T22:12:00-0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Please, take a look in my previous post. >> I guess the problem lies with IPFW and dummynet. >> How d

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Julian Elischer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I think I should give some 'real world' examples. /etc/rc.firewall: [Ss][Hh][Aa][Pp][Ee][Rr]) setup_loopback . /etc/rc.shaper ${fwcmd} add 65000 pass all from any to any ;; /etc/rc.shaper: ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcm

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Very good. You're right! I inserted a rule to match all non-layer2 packets on the top of the ruleset and interrupts dropped 10~20% immediately. Given that, I went to apply Julian's idea of grouping 'in' and 'out' pipe rules to reduce the searching on the firewall and that gave me a little bit m

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Interesting. I'll try to take a look when I have some free time and then post some comments. Thanks. John-Mark Gurney wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 22:40 -0300: Anyway, I am very curious about the result of test 2. Why do the pipes have influence on sys

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

I guess traffic stops if you have pipe rules. In test 1, I did: ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} pipe 2 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} add _allow_ all from any to any MAC any 00:11:22:33:44:55 in ${fwcmd} add _allow_ all from any to any MAC 00:11:22:33:44:55 any out x 1600 times. That