Simon Kirby writes:
> Has such a patch gone in to the kernel yet?
Yep, it is in both the zerocopy and AC patches. (Linus is
away at the moment)
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:52:37PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
>
> All of this is what appears to be a bug in Windows TCP header
> compression, if the ID field of the IPv4 header does not change then
> it drops every other packet.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:52:37PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
All of this is what appears to be a bug in Windows TCP header
compression, if the ID field of the IPv4 header does not change then
it drops every other packet.
The
Simon Kirby writes:
Has such a patch gone in to the kernel yet?
Yep, it is in both the zerocopy and AC patches. (Linus is
away at the moment)
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Hi Jordan,
> > > 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' (which seemes to stand for 'I
Hi Jordan,
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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Jordan Mendelson writes:
> > Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> > right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> > move our production system to 2.4.x.
>
> The change I posted as-is, is unacceptable
Jordan Mendelson writes:
> Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> move our production system to 2.4.x.
There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
All of this is what appears to be
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Jordan Mendelson writes:
> > Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
> > right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
> > move our production system to 2.4.x.
>
> There is no reason my patch should have this
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Ookhoi writes:
> > 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'
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Ookhoi writes:
> > 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'
Hou; Linux-Kernel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4 tcp very slow under certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
> 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
&g
certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
> 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
Hi David!
> > 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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I
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
Hi David,
> > 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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I
Ookhoi writes:
> 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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had
Hi!
> Another problem that I seem to have, of which I have had reports from
> clients, is that the server has problems talking to clients using modems
> This didn't occur before with the 2.2 series kernel (all other things held
> constant). It seems each time a client tries to load up any site
Hi!
Another problem that I seem to have, of which I have had reports from
clients, is that the server has problems talking to clients using modems
This didn't occur before with the 2.2 series kernel (all other things held
constant). It seems each time a client tries to load up any site on
Ookhoi writes:
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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had a
Hi David,
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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had a
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'
Hi David!
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' (which seemes to stand for 'I Wish I had a
certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
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
Hou; Linux-Kernel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4 tcp very slow under certain circumstances (Re: netdev
issues (3c905B))
Ookhoi writes:
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
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Ookhoi writes:
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' (which seemes
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Ookhoi writes:
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' (which seemes
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Jordan Mendelson writes:
Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
move our production system to 2.4.x.
There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
My
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Jordan Mendelson writes:
Now, if it didn't have the side effect of dropping packets left and
right after ~4000 open connections (simultaneously), I could finally
move our production system to 2.4.x.
The change I posted as-is, is unacceptable because it adds
29 matches
Mail list logo
