On Sunday, December 25, 2011 11:01:33 am Коньков Евгений wrote:
Здравствуйте, John.
Вы писали 20 декабря 2011 г., 16:52:44:
JB On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:21:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:00:23AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
An update. I've sent Pawel
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:12:59AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, December 25, 2011 11:01:33 am Коньков Евгений wrote:
Здравствуйте, John.
Вы писали 20 декабря 2011 г., 16:52:44:
JB On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:21:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:25:02 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:12:59AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, December 25, 2011 11:01:33 am Коньков Евгений wrote:
Здравствуйте, John.
Вы писали 20 декабря 2011 г., 16:52:44:
JB On Saturday,
Здравствуйте, John.
Вы писали 20 декабря 2011 г., 16:52:44:
JB On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:21:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:00:23AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
An update. I've sent Pawel a testing patch to see if my hypothesis is
correct
On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:21:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:00:23AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
An update. I've sent Pawel a testing patch to see if my hypothesis is
correct
(www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/tcp_negwin_test.patch). If it is then I
intend
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:00:23AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
An update. I've sent Pawel a testing patch to see if my hypothesis is correct
(www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/tcp_negwin_test.patch). If it is then I intend
to commit www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/tcp_negwin2.patch as the fix.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:00:23AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
An update. I've sent Pawel a testing patch to see if my hypothesis is correct
(www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/tcp_negwin_test.patch). If it is then I intend
to commit www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/tcp_negwin2.patch as the fix.
Sorry
On Monday, October 24, 2011 8:14:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
My suggestion would be that
On Friday, October 28, 2011 1:46:07 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:29:34AM +1100, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 10/26/11 22:53, John Baldwin wrote:
The assertion would be triggered when the next packet arrives (as I said
above). Try modifying your debugging output
On 10/26/11 22:53, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:54:31 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:14:22AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:29:34AM +1100, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 10/26/11 22:53, John Baldwin wrote:
The assertion would be triggered when the next packet arrives (as I said
above). Try modifying your debugging output to also log if the ACK is
delayed. I suspect it is not delayed
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:14:22AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
My suggestion would be
On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:54:31 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:14:22AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at
On 10/26/11 12:54 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:14:22AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
My suggestion would be that if we won't be able to fix it before 9.0,
we should turn
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:35:15PM +1100, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 10/22/11 19:49, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252 rcv_adv 3718268291
I only have picture of the backtrace:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:35:15PM +1100, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 10/22/11 19:49, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
My suggestion would be that if we won't be able to fix it before 9.0,
we should turn this assertion off, as the system seems to be able to
recover.
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252 rcv_adv 3718268291
I only have picture of the backtrace:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/misc/panic_negative_window.jpg
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252 rcv_adv 3718268291
I only have picture of the backtrace:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/misc/panic_negative_window.jpg
I've
On 10/22/11 19:49, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252 rcv_adv 3718268291
I only have picture of the backtrace:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/misc/panic_negative_window.jpg
ewww that
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 10/22/11 19:49, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
The panic message says:
panic: tcp_input negative window: tp 0xfe007763e000 rcv_nxt
3718269252 rcv_adv 3718268291
I only have picture of the backtrace:
22 matches
Mail list logo
