On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 20:47, Adriaan wrote:
> Changing send and recvspace on a router has no effect, except
> unnecessary taking away
> memory space.
>
> When my ADSL line was upgraded to 896 up /7296 down the only thing to
> speed up ftp download speed on
> my workstation was to adjust B net.ine
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 21:35, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2009-11-02, Bartosz Ku??ma wrote:
>> I have pair of routers configured with CARP, pfsync, trunk interface
>> and a really simple pf. The main purpose of this system is
>> load-balancing WWW traffic among two web servers. In production
>>
On 2009-11-02, Adriaan wrote:
> When my ADSL line was upgraded to 896 up /7296 down the only thing to
> speed up ftp download speed on
> my workstation was to adjust net.inet.tcp.recvspace to 65536.
there is less risk of hitting router bugs and misconfigured stateful
firewalls if your buffer is
On 2009-11-02, Bartosz Ku??ma wrote:
> I have pair of routers configured with CARP, pfsync, trunk interface
> and a really simple pf. The main purpose of this system is
> load-balancing WWW traffic among two web servers. In production
> environment rdr will be replaced by relayd(8). All of them ru
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bartosz KuE:ma
wrote:
[snip]
I did system tuning according to
> https://calomel.org/network_performance.html (changed send and
> recevspace to 256144 and several more minor improvements) but without
> effect.
>
> How can I improve packet forwarding speed? Or I just
5 matches
Mail list logo
