--On 13 December 2012 15:33 +0400 Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@freebsd.org wrote:
Nope, there is no autotuning here yet.
The hash table size is hardcoded in sys/net/if_llatbl.h. The name of
constant is LLTBL_HASHTBL_SIZE.
Default is 32, which is even commented with /* default 32 ? */ - I found
Anh one?
בתאריך 7 בינו 2013 18:09, מאת Sami Halabi sodyn...@gmail.com:
Hi,
i have a core router that i want to enable firewall on it.
is these enough for a start:
ipfw add 100 allow all from any to any via lo0
ipfw add 25000 allow all from me to any
ipfw add 25100 allow ip from table(7) to
--- On Mon, 1/7/13, Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com wrote:
From: Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com
Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
To: Barney Cordoba barney_cord...@yahoo.com
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Monday, January 7, 2013, 10:56 PM
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Jan
The only weird crap I've seen with SMP versus non-SMP these days is
some assumptions that it's cheap to alternate between two tasks in a
preemptive kernel.
That behaviour sucks on MIPS.
On SMP machines with enough CPUs/hardware threads, you don't see the
context switch overhead because you have
On Jan 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Barney Cordoba wrote:
--- On Mon, 1/7/13, Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com wrote:
From: Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com
Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
To: Barney Cordoba barney_cord...@yahoo.com
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/07/2013 18:25, Barney Cordoba wrote:
I have a situation where I have to run 9.1 on an old single core
box. Does anyone have a handle on whether it's better to build a
non SMP kernel or to just use a standard SMP build with just the
one core?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:57:04 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Jan 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Barney Cordoba wrote:
--- On Mon, 1/7/13, Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com wrote:
From: Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com
Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
To: Barney
Hi,
I'm try to use netmap pkt-gen on real and virtual (virtualbox)
hardware with FreeBSD 9.1.
My setup is pretty simple:
( HOST1 em0:1.1.1.1 ) -- ( em0:1.1.1.2 HOST2 )
But I didn't reach to use pkt-gen (from tools/tools/netmap), I've got
errors (on both physical and virtual machines):
-
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:39:10PM +0100, Olivier Cochard-Labb? wrote:
Hi,
I'm try to use netmap pkt-gen on real and virtual (virtualbox)
hardware with FreeBSD 9.1.
My setup is pretty simple:
( HOST1 em0:1.1.1.1 ) -- ( em0:1.1.1.2 HOST2 )
But I didn't reach to use pkt-gen (from
--- On Tue, 1/8/13, Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au wrote:
From: Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au
Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
To: Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com
Cc: Barney Cordoba barney_cord...@yahoo.com, Erich Dollansky
erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com, freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date:
hi,
I want to compile new kernel with vimage and multiple.routing tables in
host, would that work? Or to expect kernel panics?
I want to be able to mske.independent stack jails usr setfib in host to
create vrfs...
Thank you in advance,
Sami
___
On 1/8/13 5:04 PM, Sami Halabi wrote:
hi,
I want to compile new kernel with vimage and multiple.routing tables in
host, would that work? Or to expect kernel panics?
I want to be able to mske.independent stack jails usr setfib in host to
create vrfs...
done all the time
Thank you in
Hi,
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 08:29:51 -0800
Mark Atkinson atkin...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/07/2013 18:25, Barney Cordoba wrote:
I have a situation where I have to run 9.1 on an old single core
box. Does anyone have a handle on whether it's better
13 matches
Mail list logo
