On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
> > community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
> > just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
>
> The zero copy patches were basically
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
The zero copy patches were basically self
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
[snip]
> If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
> having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
> what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
> as
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
[snip]
If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
as well as
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:31PM -0400, God wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > 2) They certainly are. Every once in a while they go through a period of
> >silently dropping all email coming from hosts that don't have PTRs.
> >This wou
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:10:29AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyone have any friends at AOL? I wonder what the effect on these
> > non-conformant sites would be if AOL's proxy's became ECN enabled?
>
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:31:23PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> Folks,
>
> ECN is about to become a Proposed Standard RFC. Thanks to
> efforts from the Linux community, a few issues were discovered
> in the course of deploying the code. Special kudos go to Alexey
> Kuznetsov and David Miller.
[snip]
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:31:23PM -0400, jamal wrote:
Folks,
ECN is about to become a Proposed Standard RFC. Thanks to
efforts from the Linux community, a few issues were discovered
in the course of deploying the code. Special kudos go to Alexey
Kuznetsov and David Miller.
[snip]
Anyone
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:31PM -0400, God wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
2) They certainly are. Every once in a while they go through a period of
silently dropping all email coming from hosts that don't have PTRs.
This would be no worse.
ACK Which do
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:10:29AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
Anyone have any friends at AOL? I wonder what the effect on these
non-conformant sites would be if AOL's proxy's became ECN enabled?
And AOL is sure crazy enough to break
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:19:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That means that for fooling closed-source statically-linked binary,
>
> If they are using glibc then you have the right to the object to link
> with the library and the library source under the LGPL. I dont know of any
> app using its
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:44:36PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On 03 May 2001 09:13:00 +0200,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 30.04.01 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> PS: Hmm, how do you do timewarp for just one userland appliation
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:44:36PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
On 03 May 2001 09:13:00 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 30.04.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PS: Hmm, how do you do timewarp for just one userland appliation with
this
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:19:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
That means that for fooling closed-source statically-linked binary,
If they are using glibc then you have the right to the object to link
with the library and the library source under the LGPL. I dont know of any
app using its own C
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:10:49PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> Not to mention in various comments and documentation. Deregister,
> according to www.m-w.com (and many other dictionaries), is not a word.
> Is there some sort of historical significance to this being used, in
> place of
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:59PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
[snip]
> The point is: The code in that "magic page" that considers the
> tradeoff is KERNEL code, which is designed to care about such
> trade-offs for that machine. Glibc never knows this stuff and
> shouldn't, because it is already
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:09:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rogier Wolff)
> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > >
> > > > # l /mnt/d1
> > > > total 16
> > >
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 07:07:51PM -0400, Duncan Gauld wrote:
> Hi,
> This seems a silly question but - I have an intel celeron 800mhz CPU and thus
> it is of the Coppermine breed. But under cpu selection when configuring the
> kernel, should I select PIII or PII/Celeron? Just wondering, since
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > Ingo Oeser writes:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Ingo Oeser writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > The idea is that the one thing one tends to optimize for new cpus
> > > is the memcpy/memset implementation. What better way to shield
>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
Ingo Oeser writes:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
The idea is that the one thing one tends to optimize for new cpus
is the memcpy/memset implementation. What better way to shield
libc
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
Gregory Maxwell writes:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
Ingo Oeser writes:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
The idea is that the one thing one tends
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 07:07:51PM -0400, Duncan Gauld wrote:
Hi,
This seems a silly question but - I have an intel celeron 800mhz CPU and thus
it is of the Coppermine breed. But under cpu selection when configuring the
kernel, should I select PIII or PII/Celeron? Just wondering, since
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:09:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Rogier Wolff wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rogier Wolff)
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
# l /mnt/d1
total 16
drwxr-xr-x 512 root root
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:59PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
[snip]
The point is: The code in that magic page that considers the
tradeoff is KERNEL code, which is designed to care about such
trade-offs for that machine. Glibc never knows this stuff and
shouldn't, because it is already bloated.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:10:49PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
Not to mention in various comments and documentation. Deregister,
according to www.m-w.com (and many other dictionaries), is not a word.
Is there some sort of historical significance to this being used, in
place of
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 06:37:05PM +0100, Carlos Parada (EST) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to set up an IPv6 network in Linux kernel 2.4.0-test10. In this
> network I'm using just 3 boxs and I would use static routes.
> __ _
> | A ||B | | C |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:24:46PM -0400, Dave wrote:
> I am having a very strange problem in linux 2.4 kernels. I have not set
> any iptables rules at all, and there is no firewall blocking any of my
> outgoing traffic. At what seems like random selection, I can not connect
> to IP's yet I can
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:24:46PM -0400, Dave wrote:
I am having a very strange problem in linux 2.4 kernels. I have not set
any iptables rules at all, and there is no firewall blocking any of my
outgoing traffic. At what seems like random selection, I can not connect
to IP's yet I can get
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:05:47PM -0500, Adam wrote:
> BZZT, wrong. Headers were forged intentionally to show pine since it is
> what Linus uses.
>
> I had a joke for this year as well, but I didn't hear back from Linus if
> that's cool with him to send it to LKML (I suppose I should have asked
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:43:52PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> I'm really sick of being buried in useless information. The signal
> gets lost in the noise. It is easy to discard automatically generated
> bug reports, and way too annoying to wade through the crud.
>
> When network
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:43:52PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
I'm really sick of being buried in useless information. The signal
gets lost in the noise. It is easy to discard automatically generated
bug reports, and way too annoying to wade through the crud.
When network connections
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:05:47PM -0500, Adam wrote:
BZZT, wrong. Headers were forged intentionally to show pine since it is
what Linus uses.
I had a joke for this year as well, but I didn't hear back from Linus if
that's cool with him to send it to LKML (I suppose I should have asked him
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:03:28PM -0800, Jonathan Morton wrote:
[snip]
> Issue 3:
> The OOM killer was frequently killing the "wrong" process. I have
> developed an improved badness selector, and devised a possible means of
> specifying "don't touch" PIDs at runtime. PID 1 is never
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:03:28PM -0800, Jonathan Morton wrote:
[snip]
Issue 3:
The OOM killer was frequently killing the "wrong" process. I have
developed an improved badness selector, and devised a possible means of
specifying "don't touch" PIDs at runtime. PID 1 is never selected
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:41:11PM +0200, Erik van Asselt wrote:
> Hm i have the Promise raid source for 2.2 kernel modules so what do you mean
> by opensource signatures
>
> i have it working for 2.2 kernels but i can't get it to work properly in 2.4
> So if someone want to look at the
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:41:11PM +0200, Erik van Asselt wrote:
Hm i have the Promise raid source for 2.2 kernel modules so what do you mean
by opensource signatures
i have it working for 2.2 kernels but i can't get it to work properly in 2.4
So if someone want to look at the source
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:07:22AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> I have just received notice that my machines will no longer be
> provided access to "The Internet".
>
> "Effective on or before 16:00:00 local time, the only personal
> computers that will be allowed Internet access are
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:07:22AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
I have just received notice that my machines will no longer be
provided access to "The Internet".
"Effective on or before 16:00:00 local time, the only personal
computers that will be allowed Internet access are
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:34:18PM -0800, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> The I/O APIC code for 2.2 contains a little trick which sets the destination
> to 0 to disable an I/O APIC entry. This apparently trips up the I/O APIC
> on AMD-760MP systems causing a lockup during boot.
[snip]
I'd love you
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:17:19AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > > There are some scheduler patches that are not part of the
> > > main kernel tree at this point (mostly since they have yet to
> > > be optimized for the common case)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:17:19AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote:
There are some scheduler patches that are not part of the
main kernel tree at this point (mostly since they have yet to
be optimized for the common case) which make quite
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:34:18PM -0800, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
The I/O APIC code for 2.2 contains a little trick which sets the destination
to 0 to disable an I/O APIC entry. This apparently trips up the I/O APIC
on AMD-760MP systems causing a lockup during boot.
[snip]
I'd love you test
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:46:39PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
> > > Hello linux-kernel,
> > >
> > > Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a use
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
> Hello linux-kernel,
>
> Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a userland process
> connect out, or accept connections) using non-local IPs? By "non-local"
> I just mean IPs that aren't assigned to an interface, but do
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:14:15PM +0100, David Balazic wrote:
[snip]
> Hardware Level caching is only good for OSes which have broken
> drivers and broken caching (like plain old DOS).
>
> Linux does a good job in caching and cache control at software
> level.
Read caching, yes. But for
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Jorge David Ortiz Fuentes wrote:
[snip]
> "task" that can be run. Using this structure makes easier to identify
> which threads belong to the same process and tools such as ps or top
> show the TID as a field.
>
> I understand that changing this in
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Jorge David Ortiz Fuentes wrote:
[snip]
"task" that can be run. Using this structure makes easier to identify
which threads belong to the same process and tools such as ps or top
show the TID as a field.
I understand that changing this in the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:14:15PM +0100, David Balazic wrote:
[snip]
Hardware Level caching is only good for OSes which have broken
drivers and broken caching (like plain old DOS).
Linux does a good job in caching and cache control at software
level.
Read caching, yes. But for writes, the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
Hello linux-kernel,
Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a userland process
connect out, or accept connections) using non-local IPs? By "non-local"
I just mean IPs that aren't assigned to an interface, but do fall
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:46:39PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
Hello linux-kernel,
Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a userland process
connect out, or accept connections) using
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> > then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> > pain to do.
>
> So we would get
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
pain to do.
So we would get
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:38:48PM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command.
> > i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not
> > functional"!
> I had the same problem.
> Add
> append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:38:48PM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command.
i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not
functional"!
I had the same problem.
Add
append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66 ide0=autotune
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:13:30PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
> If you want stability, run the real Linus 2.4. If you want all the
> really minor bug fixes and more of the experimental code, run -ac. If
> you want production quality, run your kernel on a test server before
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:00:55PM -0800, Nye Liu wrote:
[snip]
> This is NOT what I'm seeing at all.. the kernel load appears to be
> pegged at 100% (or very close to it), the user space app is getting
> enough cpu time to read out about 10-20Mbit, and FURTHERMORE the kernel
> appears to be
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
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'
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:00:55PM -0800, Nye Liu wrote:
[snip]
This is NOT what I'm seeing at all.. the kernel load appears to be
pegged at 100% (or very close to it), the user space app is getting
enough cpu time to read out about 10-20Mbit, and FURTHERMORE the kernel
appears to be ACKING
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:13:30PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
If you want stability, run the real Linus 2.4. If you want all the
really minor bug fixes and more of the experimental code, run -ac. If
you want production quality, run your kernel on a test server before
deploying.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:47:10PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:57:14AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > The XOR patent and the fraudulent enforcement of it is the purest
> > > embodiment of everything that is wrong with the
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:47:10PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:57:14AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
The XOR patent and the fraudulent enforcement of it is the purest
embodiment of everything that is wrong with the patent
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:20:54PM -0800, Mike Pontillo wrote:
[snip]
> Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
> a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
> internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:20:54PM -0800, Mike Pontillo wrote:
[snip]
Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out of
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:24:21PM +0530, Vineet Mehta wrote:
> I m a beginner so please dont mind..
> How do we calculate the network utilization of a particular ethernet LAN
> segment?
> Whata are the issues involved?
You start by asking in the right place.
Then, considering your mail user
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:24:21PM +0530, Vineet Mehta wrote:
I m a beginner so please dont mind..
How do we calculate the network utilization of a particular ethernet LAN
segment?
Whata are the issues involved?
You start by asking in the right place.
Then, considering your mail user agent,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:00:25AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> How big do you have your icons set that you can actually read stuff in
> it?
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Mordechai Ovits wrote:
>
> > In newer file managers, the icon of a C file is a tiny image of the first
> > few lines of text.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:00:25AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
How big do you have your icons set that you can actually read stuff in
it?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Mordechai Ovits wrote:
In newer file managers, the icon of a C file is a tiny image of the first
few lines of text. If all
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:06:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> More to add on the gcc 2.96 problems. After compiling a Linux 2.4.1
> kernel on gcc 2.91, running SCI benchmarks, then compiling on RedHat
> 7.1 (Fischer) with gcc 2.96, the 2.96 build DROPPED 30% in throughput
> from the gcc
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:06:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
More to add on the gcc 2.96 problems. After compiling a Linux 2.4.1
kernel on gcc 2.91, running SCI benchmarks, then compiling on RedHat
7.1 (Fischer) with gcc 2.96, the 2.96 build DROPPED 30% in throughput
from the gcc 2.91
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:31:57AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> How well is this card supported for it's capture capabilities and dual head?
Capture and dual head are almost totally unsupported without using a
proprietary, binary only driver chunk which will soundly place your system as
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:31:57AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
How well is this card supported for it's capture capabilities and dual head?
Capture and dual head are almost totally unsupported without using a
proprietary, binary only driver chunk which will soundly place your system as
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:50:13PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[snip]
> From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable
>
> make it blow up fataly and immediatly if it detects Red Hat + gcc
>2.96-red_hat_broken(forgot version num)
> make it provide a URL to get the patch to
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:50:13PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[snip]
From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable
make it blow up fataly and immediatly if it detects Red Hat + gcc
2.96-red_hat_broken(forgot version num)
make it provide a URL to get the patch to
Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
specweb dyanmic stuff in x86
Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
specweb dyanmic stuff in x86
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:08:40PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > A sufficiently paranoid firewall should block requests that he doesn't
> > fully understand. ECN was in this category, so old firewalls are
> > "right" to block these. (Sending an 'RST' is not
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 05:11:20PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
> > The simplest thing in this chaos is to fix the firewall because it is in
> > violation to begin with.
>
> It is not in violation, and you can't fix it: it's not yours.
[snip]
> > It's too bad we end up defining
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> > Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are.
>
> Let me guess: you're a lawyer? :-)
>
> This is a very strange definition: if someone makes a change such that
> their
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:04:17AM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
> > those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets
> > through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just
> > because they are not supporting an *experimental*
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:37:48PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Conclusions:
>
> > For a NIC which cannot do scatter/gather/checksums, the zerocopy
> > patch makes no change in throughput in all case.
>
> > For a NIC which can do
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:29:52PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> > There is nothing silly with the decision, davem is simply a modern day
> > internet hero.
>
> No. If it were something essential, perhaps, but it's just a minor
> performance tweak to cut packet loss over congested links. It's
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:35:43PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> ...
> > An attack against an Xray system is much more likely to come from inside the
> > companies network.
> ...
>
> We are not tal
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:35:43PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
...
An attack against an Xray system is much more likely to come from inside the
companies network.
...
We are not talking about attacks here, we are talking
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:29:52PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
There is nothing silly with the decision, davem is simply a modern day
internet hero.
No. If it were something essential, perhaps, but it's just a minor
performance tweak to cut packet loss over congested links. It's not
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:37:48PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
Thus spake Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Conclusions:
For a NIC which cannot do scatter/gather/checksums, the zerocopy
patch makes no change in throughput in all case.
For a NIC which can do
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:04:17AM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets
through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just
because they are not supporting an *experimental* extension to
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are.
Let me guess: you're a lawyer? :-)
This is a very strange definition: if someone makes a change such that
their machine can
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 05:11:20PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
The simplest thing in this chaos is to fix the firewall because it is in
violation to begin with.
It is not in violation, and you can't fix it: it's not yours.
[snip]
It's too bad we end up defining protocols using
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:08:40PM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
A sufficiently paranoid firewall should block requests that he doesn't
fully understand. ECN was in this category, so old firewalls are
"right" to block these. (Sending an 'RST' is not
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:10:25AM +0100, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > It's this kind of ignorance that makes the internet a less secure and stable
> > place.
>
> You have obviously absolutely no idea what
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:09:27PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> > > Firewalling should be implemented on the hosts, perhaps with centralized
> > > policy management. In such a situation, there would be no reason to filter
> > > on funny IP
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 02:18:31PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Firewalling should be implemented on the hosts, perhaps with centralized
> > policy management. In such a situation, there would be no reason to filter
> > on funny IP options.
>
> That's madness. If you have to implement
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:58:51PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
[snip]
> > I think that older Checkpoint firewalls (perhaps current?) zeroed out SACK
> > on 'hide nat'ed connections. This causes unreasonable stalls for users on
> > SACK enabled clients. Not cool.
>
> If both SACK and
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:52:32PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Gregory!
> You might have a look on linux/Documentation/networking/policy-routing.txt
> I think this was down by Alexey Kuznetov
Thanks for the quick reply. But that's not exactly what I was looking for.
I was trying to find
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:18:09PM +0100, Frank v Waveren wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 04:10:48AM +, David Wagner wrote:
> > Practice being really, really paranoid. Think: You're designing a
> > firewall; you've got some reserved bits, currently unused; any future code
> > that uses them
Has anyone decided to code a SFB (Stochastic Fair Blue) queue implementation
for Linux? It's been implemented for FreeBSD/ALTQ
(http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~wuchang/blue/). The paper for it shows it
performing very well in comparison to RED.
It might be useful in a Linux implementation to be able
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
