machines work like
expected, beyond 8972 bytes payload the OS is fragmenting (resp. tells
me that DF bit was set but fragmentation was needed)
FreeBSD seems to never fragment packets, since I don't get an answer if
I define payload greater than MTU. But this should work, shouldn't it
(`
he OS is fragmenting (resp. tells
me that DF bit was set but fragmentation was needed)
FreeBSD seems to never fragment packets, since I don't get an answer if
I define payload greater than MTU. But this should work, shouldn't it
(`ping -s 1 host`)
Does anybody have any explanation why pi
was set but fragmentation was needed)
FreeBSD seems to never fragment packets, since I don't get an answer if
I define payload greater than MTU. But this should work, shouldn't it
(`ping -s 1 host`)
Does anybody have any explanation why pings are working up to 8130 bytes
payloa
ious ISP but now any
packets larger than 1500 bytes and thus requiring fragmentation which
arrive in do not make it to the tun0 ppp interface.
For example here I initiate a large ping from outside my network to
the machine on which my ppp client is running -
# ping -s 1500 -c 1 88.129.153.1
Andrew Wingorodov wrote:
how to forbid to process IP, which are fragmentation?
ipfw add deny all from any to any frag
...but please be very sure that you are passing the ICMP message types used for
path MTU discovery, or else your network may become a "notwork", at least as far
-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: how to forbid to process IP, which are fragmentation?
how to forbid to process IP, which are fragmentation?
--
Andrew Wingborn
http://andr.ru/
+7(903)135-80-98
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
how to forbid to process IP, which are fragmentation?
--
Andrew Wingborn
http://andr.ru/
+7(903)135-80-98
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 01:30:41PM -0700, Glenn Dawson wrote:
> From the original message:
>
> Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/ar0s1e248M -278K228M-0%/tmp
>
> This shows that /tmp is empty. If the reserved space was being encroached
> upon, it w
Don't top-post, please.
Lei Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then, my other question is,
>
> If the file space allocation works like Glenn said earlier, how come
> with the exact same files from 2 different installations using the
> exact procedures, can result
omehow the the stats was not showing the correct information.
I have already rebuild the machine, all of the effect from the
atacontrol rebuild array are gone now, and it seems like everything is
back to normal.
Capacity is right, Used is right, Avail is right, and all 0.0% fragmentation.
Then
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:20:12AM -0400, Jerry McAllister wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the good answers.
> >
> > But can anyone tell me why the capacity is going negative? and not full?
> >
> > > Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
> > > /dev/ar0s1e248M -278K228M
This happened, after I tested the atacontrol to rebuild the raid1.
The /tmp partition doesn't have anything but several empty directories created.
and I have the clear /tmp directive in the rc.conf, which will clean
up the /tmp everytime when system boot up.
So that was really wierd. as it never
On 8/15/05, Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> As someone mentioned, there is a FAQ on this. You should read it.
>
> It is going negative because you have used more than the nominal
> capacity of the slice. The nominal capacity is the total space
> minus the reserved proportion
nswer.
> > >
> > >This is a FAQ.
> > >
> > >The available space is always computed after subtracting some space
> > >that would be only available to root (typically around 5% or 10%
> > >of the partition size).
> >
> > The default is 8%.
% or 10%
> >of the partition size).
>
> The default is 8%.
>
> > This free space is necessary to avoid internal
> >fragmentation and to keep the file system going. Root may be able
> >to "borrow" some space from this (in which case the capacity goes
> &g
e about that one. Maybe someone else has an answer.
This is a FAQ.
The available space is always computed after subtracting some space
that would be only available to root (typically around 5% or 10%
of the partition size).
The default is 8%.
This free space is necessary to avoid internal
fragm
n answer.
This is a FAQ.
The available space is always computed after subtracting some space
that would be only available to root (typically around 5% or 10%
of the partition size). This free space is necessary to avoid internal
fragmentation and to keep the file system going. Root may be able
to
r0s1a: ... 0.5% fragmentation
/dev/ar0s1e: ... 0.0% fragmentation
/dev/ar0s1f: ... 0.0% fragmentation
/dev/ar0s1d: ... 0.1% fragmentation
Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/ar0s1a248M 53M175M23%/
devfs 1.0K1.0K 0B 100%/dev
/dev/a
Hi,
I know this question has been raised a lot of times, and most of
people don't think it is necessary to defragment ufs, and from the
previous posts, I got to know there are sometimes, disksize can be
more than 100%
But...
I got ...
/dev/ar0s1a: ... 0.5% fragmentation
/dev/ar0s1e: ..
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Nathan Kinkade wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:10:39AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:34:33AM -0600, Nathan Kinkade wrote:
> > > Does anyone know of a way to determine the %fragmentation on a mounted
>
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 19:30, Nathan Kinkade wrote:
[snip]
>
> I had already tried dumpfs, but couldn't find any information about
> actual filesystem fragmentation in the output. Erik's suggestion of
> running `# fsck -t ufs2 /usr` seemed to work, though I felt a l
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:10:39AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:34:33AM -0600, Nathan Kinkade wrote:
> > Does anyone know of a way to determine the %fragmentation on a mounted
> > UFS2 filesystem? An entry showed up in messages yesterday stating that
>
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:34:33AM -0600, Nathan Kinkade wrote:
> Does anyone know of a way to determine the %fragmentation on a mounted
> UFS2 filesystem? An entry showed up in messages yesterday stating that
> /usr has moved from time to space optimization yet the filesystem is
> o
Nathan Kinkade wrote:
Does anyone know of a way to determine the %fragmentation on a mounted
UFS2 filesystem? An entry showed up in messages yesterday stating that
/usr has moved from time to space optimization yet the filesystem is
only at about 25% of it's capacity. From what I can re
Does anyone know of a way to determine the %fragmentation on a mounted
UFS2 filesystem? An entry showed up in messages yesterday stating that
/usr has moved from time to space optimization yet the filesystem is
only at about 25% of it's capacity. From what I can read it seems that
the k
Jim Pazarena wrote:
during the boot sequence, I routinely see a "% fragmentation message".
It was my understanding that fragmentation doesn't occur on a Unix
(er FreeBSD) box..
It seems that there is a concept of fragmentation from the above
message, so, is there an "un-fragm
In the last episode (Feb 01), Jim Pazarena said:
> during the boot sequence, I routinely see a "% fragmentation
> message".
>
> It was my understanding that fragmentation doesn't occur on a Unix
> (er FreeBSD) box..
>
> It seems that there is a concept of fr
during the boot sequence, I routinely see a "% fragmentation message".
It was my understanding that fragmentation doesn't occur on a Unix
(er FreeBSD) box..
It seems that there is a concept of fragmentation from the above
message, so, is there an "un-fr
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:03:04PM -0800, Mervin McDougall wrote:
> hi
> I wanted to know whether it is unusal or is a
> problem if when my system starts it indicates that
> there is some fragmentation of the files but the file
> system is clean and thus it is skipping the fsck.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:03:04PM -0800, Mervin McDougall wrote:
> hi
> I wanted to know whether it is unusal or is a
> problem if when my system starts it indicates that
> there is some fragmentation of the files but the file
> system is clean and thus it is skipping the fsck.
Mervin McDougall wrote:
I wanted to know whether it is unusal or is a
problem if when my system starts it indicates that
there is some fragmentation of the files but the file
system is clean and thus it is skipping the fsck. Is
this a bad thing? Is this unusual?
No. It's normal.
[
hi
I wanted to know whether it is unusal or is a
problem if when my system starts it indicates that
there is some fragmentation of the files but the file
system is clean and thus it is skipping the fsck. Is
this a bad thing? Is this unusual?
__
Do
>Alright, I feel stupid but I'm going to ask anyway...
>Portversion exists in /usr/local/sbin on one FreeBSD 5.2.1 server, but
>not on the other, which is an install off the *same CD*. What package or
>port does portversion come from?
>Thanks
--
portversion is part of usr/ports/sysutils/port
Pratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
::Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:16 PM
::To: Kent Stewart
::Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
::Subject: portupgrade -c (was Re: Boot GUI / Boot data and
::process / Fragmentation)
::
::
::On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:59:58 -0700
::Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 12:59 pm, Bill Moran wrote:
> Stijn Hoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > > As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> > > very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> > > would ma
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:59:00PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> Stijn Hoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > > As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> > > very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> > >
Stijn Hoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> > very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> > would make a difference on at what percentage full one would
> > sta
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> would make a difference on at what percentage full one would
> start to notice problems.
>
> In terms of megs/gigs
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> would make a difference on at what percentage full one would
> start to notice problems.
>
> In terms of megs/gigs 80% of 120 g
Hi,
As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
would make a difference on at what percentage full one would
start to notice problems.
In terms of megs/gigs 80% of 120 gigs still has a lot of
work space left. 80% of 4 gig
uff. Anyway, when my
> > > > system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I
> > > > correct this? Any good reading material?
> > >
> > > FreeBSD will defragment itself without any action from the user.
> > > However, defragment
kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> > > > system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I
> > > > correct this? Any good reading material?
> > >
> > > FreeBSD will defragment itself without any action from the u
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:05:43 +0800
> Robert Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> > > system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I
>
Randy Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:05:43 +0800
> Robert Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> > > system boots i see all kinda fragmentation
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:05:43 +0800
Robert Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> > system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I
> > correct this? Any good reading material?
&
, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Improper shutdown of system / Fragmentation Problems / Boot logs
> I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I correct
> this? Any good reading material? Also, what should I
> I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I
> correct this? Any good reading material?
FreeBSD will defragment itself without any action from the user.
However, defragmentation requires some bl
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:59:58 -0700
Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 12:37 am, Bruce Hunter wrote:
> > Thanks for your help Kent
> >
> > I read something about using portversion -c with the portupgrade
> > command to upgrade installed pkgs that needed to be updated.
>
> I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
> system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I correct
> this? Any good reading material?
Do not correct it. It is not at all the same thing as fragmentation
in Microsloth systems and is n
e it ;)
> Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought? How
> do I get rid of that fragmentation crap? Just for shits and giggles..
> ;o)
Just keep using your system. UFS manages fragmentation during normal usage.
However, fragmentation is not what you think it
If you want a graphical boot manager, install grub from ports. This is
the boot manager that most Linux distros use, and it's easy to insert
your own nifty splash screen in the background.
> Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought? How
> do I get rid of that fragm
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 04:03:31 -0400, Bruce Hunter wrote:
> This is off topic, I was wondering if there is a pretty little gui that
> will run when booting.
man splash
In my /boot/loader.conf I haver:
splash_bmp_load="YES"
bitmap_load="YES"
bitmap_name="/boot/daemon_640.bmp"
qvb
--
pica
__
creen.
> >
> > Why does it matter. I start a boot and go get a cup of coffee, it
> > is always finished when I get back. It is only a problem if you
> > make it into one :).
> >
> > > Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question
> > >
e it
> into one :).
>
> >
> > Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought?
> > How do I get rid of that fragmentation crap? Just for shits and
> > giggles.. ;o)
> >
>
> There isn't one. Unix fixes fragmented files witho
hed when I get back. It is only a problem if you make it
into one :).
>
> Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought?
> How do I get rid of that fragmentation crap? Just for shits and
> giggles.. ;o)
>
There isn't one. Unix fixes fragmented files wit
n the ports collection? If not I might have write one. :oP
Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought? How
do I get rid of that fragmentation crap? Just for shits and giggles..
;o)
Bruce
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
n the ports collection? If not I might have write one. :oP
Oh, and thanks for your comments/answers. One last question thought? How
do I get rid of that fragmentation crap? Just for shits and giggles..
;o)
Bruce
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 02:09, Murray Taylor wrote:
> Fragmentation is a non-event in 99
Fragmentation is a non-event in 99.999% of cases. It is nothing like
micro$lop fragments and (before you ask, no there is no defrag tool,
'cos it is not required)
The shutdown question -- well you should not shutdown incorrectly ;-)
- see man shutdown and friends
(BTW - letting the FreeBS
I am kinda new to FBSD, still kinda learning stuff. Anyway, when my
system boots i see all kinda fragmentation information. How do I correct
this? Any good reading material? Also, what should I do when I shutdown
my system incorrectly and boot up again? Last questions! I promise. Is
there a file
On 2003-03-03 15:56, Clement Laforet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:50:40 +
> Audsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am currently working in the fragmentation avoidance technique caused by
> > the overhead introduced by MIP6.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:50:40 +
Audsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Respected Sir
>
> I am currently working in the fragmentation avoidance technique caused by
> the overhead introduced by MIP6. I am using FreeBSD 4.4 and Kame Snap.
> I have introduced some code in netin
Respected Sir
I am currently working in the fragmentation avoidance technique caused by
the overhead introduced by MIP6. I am using FreeBSD 4.4 and Kame Snap.
I have introduced some code in netinet6/ip6_output.c code and
netinet6/in6_pcb.h and netinet/in_pcb.h so that length of the MIP6
62 matches
Mail list logo
