It seems that it work. Thanks.
Damn, for vlan's ( 802.1Q) you should specify "em", for "tun", vice
versa... what a mess, hehe.
Cuk
Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:00:32AM +0100, Marko Cuk wrote:
Resend...
Please, does anyone ha
Resend...
Please, does anyone have any ideas...
What is the status of the tun0 driver and ALTQ ?
I have FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE and have tried it without success. Why 6.0 ?
Don't know... curious maybe... if you think, that 5.4 will work better,
I'll reinstall it.
The tun0 is because od xDSL ( P
Max obvious didn't have time to answer...
Any ideas ?
Tnx, Marko Cuk
--
NetInet d.o.o. http://www.NetInet.si
Private: http://cuk.nu
MountainBikeSlovenia team: http://mtb.si
Slovenian FreeBSD mirror admin http://www2.si.freebsd.org
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Max !
Please, do you hav
Aha, ok, thanks...
(31 Oct 2004) The results of netstat -m can become incorrect on SMP
systems when debug.mpsafenet is set to 1 (default). This is an error in
the statistics gathering because of a race condition in the counters,
not an actual memory leak.
I'll put kernel into debug and see,
Hello !!
I have problems with high load on FBSD box. First I had the 4.2 STABLE ,
then I cvsuped to 4.3-RC. Same thing.
When high traffic occurs on 100mbit hub, to wich is fxp0 connected, load
and processor usage on natd process is very high and after a while it
won't pass packets anymore to out
Hello !!
I have problems with high load on FBSD box. First I had the 4.2 STABLE ,
then I cvsuped to 4.3-RC. Same thing.
When high traffic occurs on 100mbit hub, to wich is fxp0 connected, load
and processor usage on natd process is very high and after a while it
won't pass packets anymore to out
Roman Shterenzon wrote:
>
> I've a perfectly good PR about vinum (panics) open. There's no even single
> follow up (kern/22103).
> I couldn't stand it any longer, so I'm not able to recreate it since I'm
> using raid1 on those disks now. I waited for almost one month but
> aparently nothing was
"Crist J . Clark" wrote:
>
>
> Details please? The natd(8) process is not actually started from
> rc.firewall, but from rc.network. In which of these is the supposed
> breakage? Or do you mean the divert(4) rule in rc.firewall is not
> being added properly?
That's right !
> Could you post the
