On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 10:55:05 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> That's very odd. I see them on my development box too which is just
> talking FreeBSD<->FreeBSD. We should not be seeing them at all.
I found that big source of them is Windows machines when Selective
acknowledgement is
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 10:55:05 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> That's very odd. I see them on my development box too which is just
> talking FreeBSD<->FreeBSD. We should not be seeing them at all.
I got about 200 of them per 6 hours. Nothing unusual, small webserver +
SMTP.
--
And
:Hello -current,
:
:I'm seeing a bit (12 or more per day) of
:"PAWS ack-on-ack loop avoided" in my /var/log/messages
:
:Which appears to just be triggered by a mechanism to drop
:bad packets. Is this correct? Is this something I should be
:concerned about?
:
:Thanks in ad
:I've got this on my development box which doesn't run any services.
:I don't remember exactly what I've been doing when these appeared;
:probably printing some connection data like IPs and ports from TCB
:would help.
:
:
:Cheers,
:--=20
:Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 12:23 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote:
The printf() is only in HEAD for feedback purposes. I'd like to
leave
it in there just a little while longer (maybe a week at the rate
things
are going). It looks like more people are hitting this bug(fix)
then
In the last episode (Dec 23), Matthew Dillon said:
> The printf() is only in HEAD for feedback purposes. I'd like to
> leave it in there just a little while longer (maybe a week at the
> rate things are going). It looks like more people are hitting this
> bug(fix) then we previously thought would
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 09:23:30AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The printf() is only in HEAD for feedback purposes. I'd like to leave
> it in there just a little while longer (maybe a week at the rate things
> are going). It looks like more people are hitting this bug(fix) then
>
The printf() is only in HEAD for feedback purposes. I'd like to leave
it in there just a little while longer (maybe a week at the rate things
are going). It looks like more people are hitting this bug(fix) then
we previously thought would hit it, which is actually somewhat worryin
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 10:13:29AM -0500, Matthew Kolb wrote:
> Hello -current,
>
> I'm seeing a bit (12 or more per day) of
> "PAWS ack-on-ack loop avoided" in my /var/log/messages
>
> Which appears to just be triggered by a mechanism to drop
> bad packets.
Hello -current,
I'm seeing a bit (12 or more per day) of
"PAWS ack-on-ack loop avoided" in my /var/log/messages
Which appears to just be triggered by a mechanism to drop
bad packets. Is this correct? Is this something I should be
concerned about?
Thanks in advance,
./muk
--
m
10 matches
Mail list logo
