Simon Kirby writes:
> Has such a patch gone in to the kernel yet?
Yep, it is in both the zerocopy and AC patches. (Linus is
away at the moment)
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
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:52:37PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
>
> All of this is what appears to be a bug in Windows TCP header
> compression, if the ID field of the IPv4 header does not change then
> it drops every other packet.
>
> The
Hi Jordan,
> > > We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> > > following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> > > header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> > > Holland called 'Wish' (which seemes to stand for 'I
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Jordan Mendelson writes:
> > Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> > right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> > move our production system to 2.4.x.
>
> The change I posted as-is, is unacceptable becaus
Jordan Mendelson writes:
> Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> move our production system to 2.4.x.
There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
All of this is what appears to be
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Jordan Mendelson writes:
> > Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> > right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> > move our production system to 2.4.x.
>
> There is no reason my patch should have this effe
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Ookhoi writes:
> > We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> > following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> > header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> > Holland called 'Wish' (whic
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Ookhoi writes:
> > We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> > following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> > header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> > Holland called 'Wish' (whic
Vibol Hou; Linux-Kernel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4 tcp very slow under certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
> We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows i
under certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
> We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider
Hi David!
> > We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> > following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> > header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> > Holland called 'Wish' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I ha
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:47:24AM +0100, Ookhoi wrote:
[snip]
> We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> Holland called 'Wish'
Hi David,
> > We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> > following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> > header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> > Holland called 'Wish' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I ha
Ookhoi writes:
> We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> Holland called 'Wish' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had a
Hi!
> Another problem that I seem to have, of which I have had reports from
> clients, is that the server has problems talking to clients using modems
> This didn't occur before with the 2.2 series kernel (all other things held
> constant). It seems each time a client tries to load up any site o
22 PM
To: Vibol Hou
Cc: Linux-Kernel
Subject: Re: netdev issues (3c905B)
Vibol,
I see that the card is on IRQ 17 ???
can you send us /proc/interrupts
/Martin
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Vibol Hou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some problems on a heavily loaded web server. The first is that
t
Vibol,
I see that the card is on IRQ 17 ???
can you send us /proc/interrupts
/Martin
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Vibol Hou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some problems on a heavily loaded web server. The first is that the
> kernel is spitting out a bunch of "NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed
> out
Hi,
I have some problems on a heavily loaded web server. The first is that the
kernel is spitting out a bunch of "NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed
out" errors. I do not recall this happening in 2.4.0 under the same
conditions.
Another problem that I seem to have, of which I have had repor
18 matches
Mail list logo
