On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:12:09PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:32:14AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I think it would be better to keep it. The ifa based alias
> interface emulation adds minor overhead (currently it's only a
> few lines of code, assuming w
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:01:04AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300
>From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.
>
> Standard BSD allows it, what do you expect :-)
>
>This is good news, because i
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:56:26AM -0500, jamal wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > That said, if this was done -- how would things like routing daemons
> > and bind cope?
>
> I dont know of any routing daemons that are taking advantage of the
> alias interfaces today.
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:56:23AM -0500, jamal wrote:
[snip]
>
> I used to be against VLANS being devices, i am withdrawing that comment; it's
> a lot easier to look on them as devices if you want to run IP on them. And
> in this case, it makes sense the possibilirt of over a thousand devices
>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300
From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.
Standard BSD allows it, what do you expect :-)
This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple
addresses on a single interface so w
Date:Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:40:10 + (UTC)
From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As long as "man ip" on my machines returns "ip(7) - ip - Linux IPv4
protocol implementation", using "ip" exclusively instead of
ifconfig and route is IMHO not an option for anyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David S. Miller) writes:
> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:00:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think someone should just flush ifconfig down some toilet. a wrapper
> around "ip" to to give the same look and feel as ifconfig would be a good
> thing so t
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:11:11AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > Packet socket binding or SO_BINDTODEVICE will search the list, but it is unlikely
> > that these paths are worth optimizing for.
>
> The patch has been written, so even if it helps just a little more than it
> hurts, it might be wort
Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I'm willing to run such benchmarks, but what would make a good benchmark,
> > other than ifconfig -a?
>
> ifconfig -a is fine IMHO. Everything else I know is just a single pass through
> the lists (which even at 4000 is not very significant)
Hardware: Celeron 500, mostly
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:33:27PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
I'm hoping that I can get a few comments on this code. It was
added to (significantly) speed up things like 'ifconfig -a' when
running with 4000 or so VLAN devices. It should also help other
instances wi
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:06:54 -0700
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Unified diffs only please... Thanks.
Hrm, here's one with a -u option, this what you're looking for?
Yes, thanks a lot.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsub
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:22:41PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> At the time I was doing this, I downloaded the latest nettools version.
> The hashing made a very noticable difference on 4000 interfaces, but
> I haven't run any real solid benchmarkings at other levels. Can
> you tell me some disting
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:33:27PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > I'm hoping that I can get a few comments on this code. It was added
> > to (significantly) speed up things like 'ifconfig -a' when running with
> > 4000 or so VLAN devices. It should also help other instances
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:33:27PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> I'm hoping that I can get a few comments on this code. It was
> added to (significantly) speed up things like 'ifconfig -a' when
> running with 4000 or so VLAN devices. It should also help oth
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:00:10PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> Not to stray from the subject, Ben's effort is still needed. I think real
> numbers are useful instead of claims like it "displayed faster"
The problem with old ifconfig was really visible, old ifconfig needed several
minutes to setup. It w
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:33:27PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> I'm hoping that I can get a few comments on this code. It was added
> to (significantly) speed up things like 'ifconfig -a' when running with
> 4000 or so VLAN devices. It should also help other instances with lots
> of (virtual) devi
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Unified diffs only please... Thanks.
Hrm, here's one with a -u option, this what you're looking for?
--- ../../../linux/net/core/dev.c Mon Dec 11 14:29:35 2000
+++ dev.c Sat Jan 6 14:14:10 2001
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/*
+/* -*- linux-c -*-
* NET3Pr
Unified diffs only please... Thanks.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
18 matches
Mail list logo
