Howard Goldstein wrote this message on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 17:24 -0400:
> Scott Long wrote:
> >
> > ICH5 only support SATA-1.
> Dang. Does anyone yield SATA-II speeds with the a PCI controller? I'm
> not sure if 25-30MB/s is even possible with regular PCI
You probably mean 250-300MB/s which is w
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:02:58PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> You should be able to sustain at least 70MB/s on a single modern drive
> with SATA-1 or SATA-2. If you're not getting that then something in the
> driver or the application is getting in the way. Even with the, um,
> "problems" that Si
Scott Long wrote:
> Howard Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Scott Long wrote:
>>
>>> Howard Goldstein wrote:
>>>
Testbed: Pair of WDC3200AAKS 320gb SATA, freshly newfsd 10gb filesystem
mounted with softupdates, remounted after each test
P4 @ 3ghz on a P4P800 in 6.2-STABLE, sing
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> Scott Long wrote:
>> Howard Goldstein wrote:
>>> Testbed: Pair of WDC3200AAKS 320gb SATA, freshly newfsd 10gb filesystem
>>> mounted with softupdates, remounted after each test
>>> P4 @ 3ghz on a P4P800 in 6.2-STABLE, single user mode, ICH5R controller
>>> detects these SA
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:42:21PM +0400, Alexey Karagodov wrote:
> patch did not help ...
>
> ifconfig:
>
>
> lagg0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 0x broadcast 10.0.255.255
>inet 10.0.0.2 netmask 0x broadcast 10.0.255.255
>ether XX:XX:XX:XX:X
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:02:06AM +0100, Pete French wrote:
> > All zeros! very interesting - am surprised the switch didn't kick up
> > a fuss about that. Well, patch applied and rebooting...
>
> ...and now all my outgoing packets have the correct MAC address as expected
> on them. I alos notic
> All zeros! very interesting - am surprised the switch didn't kick up
> a fuss about that. Well, patch applied and rebooting...
...and now all my outgoing packets have the correct MAC address as expected
on them. I alos notice that I am now only seeing packets destined for the
appropriate machin
> Most people didnt see a problem which is why this slipped through.
> tcpdump on another host with the -e flag and see what the src mac is.
All zeros! very interesting - am surprised the switch didn't kick up
a fuss about that. Well, patch applied and rebooting...
thanks,
-pete.
__
Scott Long wrote:
> Howard Goldstein wrote:
>> Testbed: Pair of WDC3200AAKS 320gb SATA, freshly newfsd 10gb filesystem
>> mounted with softupdates, remounted after each test
>> P4 @ 3ghz on a P4P800 in 6.2-STABLE, single user mode, ICH5R controller
>> detects these SATA-II drives inexplicably as S
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> Howard Goldstein wrote:
>> Has anyone done any benchmarks in desktop or server environment
>> comparing geom with an ICH controller through the ar device in RAID1
>> service? Teh google, it seems to pick up grammar school math
>> assignments lots of what may be relevant h
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> Has anyone done any benchmarks in desktop or server environment
> comparing geom with an ICH controller through the ar device in RAID1
> service? Teh google, it seems to pick up grammar school math
> assignments lots of what may be relevant hits for fortunate speakers of
patch did not help ...
ifconfig:
# ifconfig
em0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=1b
ether XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX )
status: active
lagg: laggdev lagg0
em1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=1b
ether XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:54:30PM +0100, Pete French wrote:
> > lagg on RELENG_6 is currently broken due to subtle differences that
> > wernt taken into account when it was MFCd. Can you please test this
> > patch.
>
> Erp! Do you have any mor einfo on tyhis - what kinds of things does
> this bre
Steven Hartland wrote:
> I assume the security team are already working on this but
> cant hurt to ask:
Before you ask questions on a public list it's generally considered
polite to do a little checking yourself, especially in an open source
project. As Mike pointed out, the secteam had already ad
At 10:50 AM 7/25/2007, Steven Hartland wrote:
I assume the security team are already working on this but
There was a posting on the security list already about it.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2007-July/004411.html
---Mike
cant hurt to ask:
http://www.net-sec
I assume the security team are already working on this but
cant hurt to ask:
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=5366
Regards
Steve
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom
> lagg on RELENG_6 is currently broken due to subtle differences that
> wernt taken into account when it was MFCd. Can you please test this
> patch.
Erp! Do you have any mor einfo on tyhis - what kinds of things does
this break ? Since lagg arrived I have deployed it on all our production
machines
> You might be better off running ntpd on the firewall and having
> the inside hosts sync to it.
That would be nice - except my problem is that the firewal is the only
one on which ntp *doest* run! :-)
Thanks for all the other suggestions - will take a look a them later today
and see if I can tra
On 2007-Jul-25 10:30:25 +1000, Andrew Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:24:25AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2007-Jul-24 16:00:08 +0100, Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes it does. The major difference is that ntpd will use a source
>> port of 123 whilst
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> * Hard disks are growing in capacity, but are not growing in physical
> size. We're pushing 1TB in a 3.5" form factor. And the same applies to
> laptop (2.5") drives. The margin of error continues to increase as we
> try to cram more and more data in such a small med
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > The major difference is that ntpd will use a source port
> > of 123 whilst ntpdate will use a dynamic source port.
>
> Is that behaviour that can be defeated? If it uses a fixed
> source port, then multiple ntpd clients behind a nat firewall
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:24:25AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2007-Jul-24 16:00:08 +0100, Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes it does. The major difference is that ntpd will use a source
>> port of 123 whilst n
22 matches
Mail list logo
