On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote:
Hi,
What is general guidelines of mbuf cluster tunables? I usually use
There are no good guidelines other than don't set it too high. Andre
and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usage more dynamic,
I think that he has something in the
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Richard Wendland wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that you are seeing zero, not forged, TSECRs.
Windows sets TSECR zero on SYN-ACK when it does a passive open. This is
established Windows behaviour for several years, and there is a reading
of RFC1323 that might justify this.
Hi,
G How much Mbytes/sec have you got with MPPE?
I get about 70-80 kbytes/s, while without encrytion the speed is 150-160
kbytes/s (and that's my hardware limit).
A friend of mine tested my configuration in a LAN and got no decrease in the
performance with encryption added. I am going to try to
hey all,
am beginning to learn on how to manipulate netgraph nodes. i've read
archie cobbs' paper at http://www.daemonnews.org/23/netgraph.html and
it provided a good backgrounder on using netgraph. i'm now playing around
with ng_socket, ng_tee, ng_one2many and ng_iface to accomplish round
From: Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
There are no good guidelines other than don't set it too high. Andre
and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usage more dynamic,
I think that he has something in the
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 19:22+0900, CHOI Junho wrote:
From: Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
There are no good guidelines other than don't set it too high. Andre
and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
What's the simple trick to replying with the same source-IP as the
client used as destination-IP ?
Notice I said simple, monitoring the routetable or polling
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
What's the simple trick to replying with the same source-IP as the
client used as destination-IP
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Maxim Konovalov writes:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
What's the simple trick to replying with
Hi all,
Monday, January 19, 2004, 12:34:25 PM, you wrote:
DN hey all,
skiped
DN i need some understanding on what exactly ng_iface achieves, as it makes a
DN reference to the hook inet being connected to something. however,
DN connecting the ng_iface hook inet to ng_ether's upper or lower
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randall R. Stewart (home)
writes:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
What's the simple trick to replying
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:52:24 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
BTW, the lcp.c patch suggested by someone else is not the correct
approach.
It would be great to see a proper config option disable it. However,
I dont see any such patches. In the mean time, it works for me.
Otherwise
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
Short of actually fixing this LQR negotiation issue (?), might the
suggestion of a ppp.conf option to force LCP echo usage be good?
Yes. I am surprized it doesn't already have that option since thats
a more common scenario. Alternately you could use another
Ok, I asked already asked something similar to this in the past, but it's not the same
thing... maybe it's a trivial
question...
If I had two lines to the Internet: how would I use both?
Could I just provide two default routes? How?
What algorithm would be used to choose among the two?
What if
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
lines to the Internet: how would I use both? Could I just provide two
default routes? How? What algorithm would be used to choose among the
two? What if one failed?
seems to be the topic of the week over at freebsd-questions. short end of
the
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrew Riabtsev wrote:
DN connecting the ng_iface hook inet to ng_ether's upper or lower doesnt make
DN any sense because ng_ether itself does not do an encasulation of the IP
DN packet into an ethernet frame. or am i wrong here, and just configuring it
DN wrongly ?
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
Non-critical problems
S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description
---
o [2003/07/11] kern/54383 net NFS root configurations without
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:50:57AM +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote:
there was a multipath patch for 4-STABLE some months back, though for the
life of me, i don't know where it's archived anymore.
Are you referring to these patches?
On Monday 19 January 2004 18:50, Dinesh Nair wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
lines to the Internet: how would I use both? Could I just provide two
default routes? How? What algorithm would be used to choose among the
two? What if one failed?
seems to be the topic of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garrett Wollman
writes:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:58:00 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm considering ways to make sendmsg(2)/recvmsg(2) DTRT, and my
current candidate is give them a flag bit which says msg_name has
both addresses.
Um, they
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bjo
ern A. Zeeb writes:
You mean for FreeBSD or in ISBN 0-13-490012-X ?
For FreeBSD it is man 4 ip:
--- cite ---
If the IP_RECVDSTADDR option is enabled on a SOCK_DGRAM socket, the
recvmsg(2) call will return the destination IP address for a UDP data-
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garrett Wollman
writes:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:58:00 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm considering ways to make sendmsg(2)/recvmsg(2) DTRT, and my
current candidate is give them a flag bit
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote:
From: Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
There are no good guidelines other than don't set it too high. Andre
and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usage more
Hm, wasn't this accounted for in rev 1.174 / 1.107.2.31? From Matt's
commit log:
True. My notes must have been from an older version. Sorry.
Of course, that doesn't account for other non-zero strange values. I
guess the timestamp code needs a lot of work. :(
This does suggest Ken is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your analysis Niranjan. Could you please elaborate on what
you meant about the lcp.c patch not being the correct approach? I think
Mike has tested it in multiple situations, and it has worked well for a
guy in the same situation down here too.
could anyone let me know why timersub/add/cmp are disabled in the
kernel? they were introduced in 4.4BSD, and (non-)availability of
these macro makes it difficult for kame/rrs to deal with multiple
*BSDs. (guessing: are you trying to enforce the use of timespec
26 matches
Mail list logo
