Hi,
Would please the maintainer or a core member check the natd.c source for
the processing and correct defaults of natds' -same_ports option?
I took a look at natd.c and the same_ports seems to be defined in
source, it sets libalias options PKT_ALIAS_SAME_PORTS, nothing
else. It relies o
I don't know if this is the proper email list, however, I thought I would
give it a go.
Here is the problem:
I have a Sony 710A DVD burner. The box is running 4.10 and I put all the
neccessary options in my kernel config file and rebuilt everyting.
The drive is seen by the OS. I can mount it u
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 20:42 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
> : However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrupt
> : Moderation affects network performance.
> :
> : And I think a packet loss was occured by enab
: Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
: However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrupt
: Moderation affects network performance.
:
: And I think a packet loss was occured by enabled Interrupt Moderation.
: The mechanism of a packet loss in this
Rob wrote:
You'd better cite your source and / or reasoning, as ~3*10^8m/s =is=
the
accepted constant speed of light in vacuum.
It's deeper than that. The "second" and the "meter" are both defined in
terms of wavelengths of light, which (as a consequence) fixes the speed
of light _by definitio
Thank you, Matt.
>
> Very interesting, but the only reason you get lower results is simply
> because the TCP window is not big enough. That's it.
>
Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrup
: I did simple benchmark at some settings.
:
: I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
: I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
:
: These results show that the throughput of TCP increased if Interrupt
:Moderation is turned OFF. At least, adjusting these parameters affected
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 11:03:52PM +0100, Vlad Manilici wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> > I use CVS to check out from my own local copy of the repository (which
> > it seems you do too.) I use CVSup to keep my local copy of the
> > repository updated (cvsuping from cvsup.dk.freebsd.org)
>
> Could you pleas
> I use CVS to check out from my own local copy of the repository (which
> it seems you do too.) I use CVSup to keep my local copy of the
> repository updated (cvsuping from cvsup.dk.freebsd.org)
Me wrong, I found it in the Handbook:
A.5.5:
cvs-all release=cvs
Thanks & CU,
Vlad
___
Hi Erik,
> I use CVS to check out from my own local copy of the repository (which
> it seems you do too.) I use CVSup to keep my local copy of the
> repository updated (cvsuping from cvsup.dk.freebsd.org)
Could you please post your supfile? The Handbook does not document cvsuping
the repository,
Hi folks!
Running natd under 5.3-RELEASE I've seen natd doesn't touch the port
numbers - natd let packets pass with the same port numbers.
I've tried setting the -same_ports natd option to no but natd behaviour
doesn't change. From what I've found in the natd sources
(/usr/src/sbin/natd/natd.c)
Forwarded from freebsd-multimedia@, seemed interesting.
--
,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org
\u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
--- Begin Message ---
Hello
After i s
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 04:58:05PM +0100, Vlad Manilici wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> On 21.11.04 16:08, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> > It works fine for me (and the file
> > /usr/ports/shells/bash/files/patch-braces.c does not exist in my ports
> > /tree), so I would say it is your fault.
>
> M
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 21:27 +0900, Shunsuke SHINOMIYA wrote:
> Jeremie, thank you for your comment.
>
> I did simple benchmark at some settings.
>
> I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
> I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
>
> These results show that the thro
Hello,
Your problem occures with bash-3.0.16, but it works fine for me. I have
bash-3.0.16_1. That's the reason why the maintainer told you that you have to
update your ports. Maybe your used CVSup server is out of date; try another
one, e.g. cvsup2.freebsd.org.
BjÃrn
___
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Vlad Manilici wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Please take a look at ports/74157. The maintainer closed the report a bit
> hastly, with the remark "please cvsup".
>
> Well, I use CVS instead (nightly rsync from allbsd.org). Even a new
> cvs checkout (vs. update) doe
Hi List,
Please take a look at ports/74157. The maintainer closed the report a bit
hastly, with the remark "please cvsup".
Well, I use CVS instead (nightly rsync from allbsd.org). Even a new
cvs checkout (vs. update) does not fix the problem.
Who is here at fault?
1. I am. Than please someone e
Jeremie, thank you for your comment.
I did simple benchmark at some settings.
I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
These results show that the throughput of TCP increased if Interrupt
Moderation is turned OFF. At least, adj
Under FreeBSD 5.3 the SCSI subsystem on a Supermicro X6DA8-G often
hangs reporting strange timeouts. The troubles start right from the
beginning (see below). Sometimes, though, the boot goes smoothly, but
the timouts show up later on. Once in a while the system becomes
completely unusable and ev
19 matches
Mail list logo
