On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote:
> > 3 - robustness, 5.3 seems to not handle ddos attacks so well, I
> > remember on a 4.x machine I could easily take a full 100mbit udp flood
> > and have the server respond albeit maybe with some lag but it stayed
> > functional, 5.x seems to crumble under a
If this helps, I noticed this recently on the machine that has had tcp lockups.
rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type c49b flags 3 len 47956 > max 1514)
rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type 98b4 flags 3 len 17725 > max 1514)
rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type 8be6 flags 3 len 38514 > max
On February 7, 2005 03:40 pm, Tórgan Flores de Siqueira wrote:
Just adding a note: I regularly use FreeBSD on a Toshiba notebook,
and switched from 4.x to 5.x to benefit from cardbus support.
Well, I started with 5.2.1 and all things did well. Since then, I'm
trying to track 5-STABLE with no succes
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:40:48PM -0200, T?rgan Flores de Siqueira wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +, Chris wrote:
> >
> >>4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
> >>worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
> >>libs versi
On February 7, 2005 03:40 pm, Tórgan Flores de Siqueira wrote:
> Just adding a note: I regularly use FreeBSD on a Toshiba notebook,
> and switched from 4.x to 5.x to benefit from cardbus support.
> Well, I started with 5.2.1 and all things did well. Since then, I'm
> trying to track 5-STABLE with n
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +, Chris wrote:
4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 so 3rd party apps could
adjust, now we have a situation wh
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +, Chris wrote:
> 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
> worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
> libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 so 3rd party apps could
> adjust, now we have a sit
Chris wrote:
Hi
I switched over half a dozen or so servers to 5.x since october last
year expecting the same stability and performance I have had from
freebsd 4.x, after running it for 2 or 3 months I have ran into some
problems/concerns, listed below. This is not intended for anything
other then
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +, Chris wrote:
> 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
> worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
> libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 so 3rd party apps could
> adjust, now we have a situ
On Sunday, 6. February 2005 16:01, Chris wrote:
> 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
> worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
> libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0
I personally told lots and lots of people to NOT use 5.2.
Hi
I switched over half a dozen or so servers to 5.x since october last
year expecting the same stability and performance I have had from
freebsd 4.x, after running it for 2 or 3 months I have ran into some
problems/concerns, listed below. This is not intended for anything
other then feedback and
11 matches
Mail list logo
