Re: WANTLIB/LIB_DEPENDS semantics change

2010-07-03 Thread Marc Espie
Current tests goes fine, and actually show some existing problems because the old infrastructure is: - too complicated - bsd.port.mk lies about what's going on. Namely, libspecs were apparently tied to the pkgspec in a LIB_DEPENDS. But that's not true ! bsd.port.mk was only using those specs as

socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Stuart Henderson
Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? # sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=262145 # telnet naiad 80 Trying 2a01:348:108:108:a00:20ff:feda:88b6... Trying 195.95.187.35... # I was thinking of looking into it, but before going down that

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? You might have to patch sb_max for that. Joerg

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail if socket buffers are set above 256k? There is this magical define in uipc_socket2.c called SB_MAX that limits the socket buffers to 256k going over that line

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you can kill the boxes easily. You don't need 35MB per client connection if interfaces like sendfile(2) are used. All the kernel has to guarantee in that case is

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2010/07/03 18:17, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you can kill the boxes easily. some would also say that 16K is insane ;-) You don't need 35MB per client

Re: Call for testing: IPsec diff (update)

2010-07-03 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:49:52PM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: I need people to test the following IPsec diff on existing setups running -current. This diff will add some cool features for the next release but I first need regression testing with plain old setups (ipsec.conf with static keying

Re: socket buffers

2010-07-03 Thread Rod Whitworth
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:46:22 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: there is some pretty serious hardware behind it... http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/indexabout.html Those guys have some serious uses for that equipment in addition to being a great source of ftp mirrors. They are ready (or very close) to