Marc Balmer wrote:
hmm, why are people so proud of their uptimes when it only show they
don't care for their systems?
I forgot to power it (a Sun IPC) down when I left the company:
[draco:~]$ uname -a; uptime
OpenBSD draco..com 2.6 GENERIC#287 sparc
11:55AM up 1538 days, 58 mins, 1
Is the VIA C7 cpu fully supported yet?
C7-M dmesg below.
The padlock feature designed to speed up crypto looks useful.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
aes-128-cbc 31885.24k 118568.67k 312349.58k 535048.83k 649099.91k
Regards,
Greg
Op
Jean-Daniel Beaubien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any company doing a ready-to-use board with this chip?
It's a Commell LE-565[1], available from BWI[2]. Enclosures are hard to
find, though (it's an EBX form factor).
Regards,
Greg
[1] http://www.commell.com.tw/Product/SBC/L
Rod.. Whitworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:03:24 -0700 (MST), Diana Eichert wrote:
And the commell only has 2 1Gb NICs instead of 4.
Have a look at the LE565 with (IIRC) 4*1Gb ...
It does (4 x Realtek 8169). The dmesg that I posted earlier is from a
LE-565.
..
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Dimitry Andric wrote:
According to the Commell specs, those are actually 4x Realtek 8110S.
I misspoke, and just quoted the dmesg. From reviewing Realtek's
documentation, the 8169/8169S/8110S are all the same, but the 8110S is
designed for system board use. If the chip
Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For desktop/server use, hardware acceleration for crypto seems
increasingly irrelevant as processors become faster. Yawn.
From a VIA PadlockACE equipped SBC:
16 bytes64 bytes 256 bytes1024 bytes 8192 bytes
aes-128-cbc 31
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Can you say what the "irrelevant" i386 machine is? Lots of difference
between a 90MHz PentiumI and a 3GHz Opteron, and I'd like to know where
those numbers fit in.
The i386 results were sent to me off-list, so I don't know the
processor details. "I
misc@:
I've been asked by several users offlist about expected speeds of
hardware accelerated IPSec VPNs. Rather than reply to each individually,
I put together the following matrix.
I created several VPNs on my 100Mb LAN, using a 2.4GHz Intel system[1]
as the iperf "server", and a 1.0G
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, steven n fettig wrote:
I've taken a look at a few messages in the archives, but can't make
heads or tails as to the current status of setting cHDLC on the A102u.
I'm still going back and forth with Sangoma trying to get the A101
cards to work with the native drivers...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, steven n fettig wrote:
alas, it was 12 am here - so I couldn't see if they were seeing the link come
up or not. (BTW, I waited around 5 min. to see a Link Connected message but
never got it. Perhaps I didn't wait long enough? That doesn't make sense,
though.)
The fo
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Sean Knox wrote:
On the other end, there is a log showing the T1 disconnecting and attempting
to reconnect about 15 minutes prior to the above messages. One machine is
running a 3.8-beta snapshot from 8-16-05 and the other is running a 3.7
snapshot from 4-12-05. Both are u
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would love a "howto" for the win xp boxes ...
Charles Dietlein has written a document[1] detailing how to get WinXP's
native IPSec talking with OpenBSD, using MMC and the IPSec snapin. (While
it's focus is replacing WEP with IPSec, the inform
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, martin wrote:
I'm looking at a VIA motherboard with the following NICS.
3 x INTEL 82551QM & 1x 82540EM (Gigabit)
Any issues with these ? (Commell LE-564 - Eden 533MHz)
If you intend on using the fxp NICs to do bridging with pf + "scrub"
rules, you'll get kernel panics[1
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, RedShift wrote:
Does it happen on *all* fxp cards? Even on other boxes using different
motherboards/CPU's?
I can confirm that it also occurs on a HP Kayak XU800 (x86) with fxp
interfaces, from 3.6 onwards.
Regards,
Greg
\|/ ___ \|/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Jose Fragoso wrote:
Since understanding this problem is way beyond my current level, I would like
some help to find out what might be reason of this problem.
Are you doing bridging with this box? If so, do you have any "scrub"
rules in your pf.conf? The reason that I
15 matches
Mail list logo
