On 09/25/2013 20:03, Daniel Corbe wrote:
Why would disabling STP on the switch *shorten* the amount of time it takes for
the port to come up? At least on Cisco switches, it takes ~45 seconds for the
switching topology to converge with STP disabled. Shorter periods if you enable
portfast or upli
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:31:30AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > It looks like 8168E-VL.
> > Could you try attached patch and show me the dmesg output(re(4) and
> > rgephy(4) only)? The patch was generated to support 8106E but it
> > will correctly show MAC revision number.
>
> I assume I go to
> It looks like 8168E-VL.
> Could you try attached patch and show me the dmesg output(re(4) and
> rgephy(4) only)? The patch was generated to support 8106E but it
> will correctly show MAC revision number.
I assume I go to /usr/src and run
patch < /home/arlene/computer/re.8106.diff
Then rebuild
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up Oleg, although not the news that I was hoping for.
>
> So what I am going to do right now is reinstall with 9.2 and recompile the
> driver with your patch.
> I'll come back to the list with my results.
FWIW, we're (with oleg@,
Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 22:40 +0300:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:19:54AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 00:21 +0300:
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >
Thanks for the heads-up Oleg, although not the news that I was hoping for.
So what I am going to do right now is reinstall with 9.2 and recompile the
driver with your patch.
I'll come back to the list with my results.
It would be really nice if Jack et al could test that patch themselves and
endo
Can someone please describe the FreeBSD package building and
publishing to FTP process?
Consider the following representative directories...
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9.2-release/All/
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-stable/All/
I'm not really
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:19:54AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 00:21 +0300:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > > I'd like to understand why you think protecting these functions w/
> > > the _D
Hello,
I am trying to install FreeBSD 9.2-RC4 on Supermicro server with Intel Xeon
E3-1240 v3 processor. The processor has 4 cores with 8 threads. However only
one core is detected (with two threads):
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs
FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 1 core(s) x 2
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:14:38AM -0700, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
> Next steps:
> 1. I will reinstall this machine with the latest 9.2 and repeat the tests
> see what happens.
I didnt test 9.2 but i checked recent HEAD - it has vlan problem too.
--
Oleg.
=
Jack,
Can you reproduce this problem yourself? Does it make sense to experience
this behavior?
Thanks,
Rumen Telbizov
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> Thanks for the investigation, I guess what I'm wondering the most right
> now is if the patch from
> Oleg is a good cha
Thanks for the investigation, I guess what I'm wondering the most right now
is if the patch from
Oleg is a good change in general, so any others that can test and give me
results would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
> Hi Jack,
>
> Thanks fo
Why would disabling STP on the switch *shorten* the amount of time it takes
for the port to come up? At least on Cisco switches, it takes ~45 seconds
for the switching topology to converge with STP disabled. Shorter periods
if you enable portfast or uplinkfast.
-Original Message-
F
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the suggestions and looking into this.
Here are a few additional bits of information that you requested:
1. We did disable spanning tree on the switch port and the result of that
is that basically now creating/destroying a vlan on the ix interface makes
it freeze for about 3 s
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:57:07AM -0700, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
> Thanks for the patch Oleg.
> I'll give it a try but I would also like to hear back from Jack.
>
> Oleg, can you confirm that you're experiencing the exact same
> problem/behavior? What kind of switch is connected on the other end?
You have been invited to the following event.
Title: Hello Dear,
Hello Dear,
My name is Ms Tessy, a tall good looking young girl,so lovely and caring
with good understanding.fair in complexion,care with good sharing,honesty.
I saw your profile which interested me much and i decided to contact
Rumen,
I'd like to know if you can check the spanning tree setting as Daniel
mentioned and if that solves it,
I do know that that can cause considerable delay in link transitions. Also,
can you see if you see
different behavior by going to the latest 9.2 bits?
Oleg thanks for the patch, I will ch
Thanks for the patch Oleg.
I'll give it a try but I would also like to hear back from Jack.
Oleg, can you confirm that you're experiencing the exact same
problem/behavior? What kind of switch is connected on the other end?
Thanks,
Rumen Telbizov
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Oleg Bulyzhin w
I'm running my ixgbe servers with attached patch.
It does solve this problem for me.
--
Oleg.
=== Oleg Bulyzhin -- OBUL-RIPN -- OBUL-RIPE -- o...@rinet.ru ===
Index
Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 00:21 +0300:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > I'd like to understand why you think protecting these functions w/
> > the _DETACHED check is correct... In kern_event.c, all calls to
> > f_detach ar
My slowdown manifests as extremely slow disk access, even with low CPU.
This happens even
if CPU scaling is disabled, or if I am remotely accessing the system, with
no X.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Bengt Ahlgren wrote:
> Now having some experience with my "new" TP X201 and Intel/KMS graph
Now having some experience with my "new" TP X201 and Intel/KMS graphics,
I also ran into severe Xorg perfomance issues, but it was _not_
connected to suspend/resume, because it persisted after a clean reboot.
I plugged in a projector to the VGA port, and used xrandr. The Xorg
server seemed to com
Hello,
I've sent a similar query before, but didn't receive any answers.
When upgrading from 9.1 to 9-STABLE, the buildworld fails with:
===> usr.bin/xinstall (all)
cc -O2 -pipe -I/usr/src/usr.bin/xinstall/../../contrib/mtree
-I/usr/src/usr.bin/xinstall/../../lib/libnetbsd
-I/usr/src/usr.bin/xi
On 25.09.2013, at 02:16, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
>
>
> Example:
> ifconfig vlan200 create # this is OK
> ifconfig vlan200 inet 1.2.3.1/30 vlan 200 vlandev ix1 description DEBUG #
> this second line makes the rest of the vlans freeze for 6-7 seconds
>
> On the switch side (Juniper) the physica
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:58:05AM +0200, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Le Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:21:27 +0300,
> Konstantin Belousov a ?crit :
>
> Hello,
>
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > > I'd like to understand why you think protecting these functions w/
>
Le Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:21:27 +0300,
Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
Hello,
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > I'd like to understand why you think protecting these functions w/
> > the _DETACHED check is correct... In kern_event.c, all calls to
> > f_detach ar
I will look into this.
Jack
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Rumen Telbizov wrote:
> Hello Jack, list,
>
> I've been dealing with a nagging problem for a day now and decided to ask a
> quick question here.
>
> Basically I am building a brand new FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE router which has a
> dual p
27 matches
Mail list logo
