In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
james [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's interesting though how i had no ipf rules whatsoever, yet it
introduced so much latency, as Alexander has pointed out in another email.
Why is ipf so slow? I was planning on switching from ipfw/natd to
ipf/ipnat,
1:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 4.0 slower than 3.4?
Hi,
I upgraded a few days ago from 3.4-STABLE to 4.0-CURRENT, and without
really any change in configuration, anything tcp/ip is much
slower. Just a
standard "ping localhost" has gone from ~0.155ms to ~0.195ms.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:17:11 +0100, "Alexander Sanda" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
First, plain (no module loaded):
You should also try it with `options COMPAT_IPFW=0' in your config
file.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
[EMAIL
Garrett Wollman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 7:27 PM
You should also try it with `options COMPAT_IPFW=0' in your config
file.
Hm, what's this option for?
When I put it into my kernel config, the config program complained
about an "unknown option". A
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:11:49 +0100, you wrote:
After removing IPFILTER_LKM, I ran the bench again and got following
results.
What benchmark utility are you using to measure these results with?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:11:49 +0100, "Alexander Sanda" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[I wrote:]
You should also try it with `options COMPAT_IPFW=0' in your config
file.
Hm, what's this option for?
Well, somebody may have broken it (perhaps even me). But it was put
there to provide those people
