On 28-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> Or you can use PXE at your provisioning center and have the
>> BIOS setup to boot from the hard disk first, which will fail
>> for the initial boot and fall back to PXE. Then once the box
>> is installed you ship it to its destination.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> > >On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > >> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf"
> >
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf"
> >> > to actually do a real-world job once they're don
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf"
>> > to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
>> > overhea
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf"
> > to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
> > overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribl
gt;
Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ?
> Bob Bishop wrote:
> > At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > >
Bob Bishop wrote:
> At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back
> >from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them (they are
> >amd 386, so might not be good for you). [etc]
>
> IIRC AMD had a mask deal with Intel for the 386, so sho
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf"
> to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
> overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribly
> expensive.
Actually, the lack of cmpxchg8 on
Hi,
At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back
from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them (they are
amd 386, so might not be good for you). [etc]
IIRC AMD had a mask deal with Intel for the 386, so should be OK.
--
Bob Bishop
< said:
> Also, 386-core based chips are still in production (or have been in
> the last year). It has only been very recently that the embedded
> chips have transitioned to 486. Calling them, as others have, 10
> years obsolete is a bit of an overstatement...
There is lots of obsolete technolo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>Also, 386-core based chips are still in production (or have been in
>the last year). It has only been very recently that the embedded
>chips have transitioned to 486. Calling them, as others have, 10
>years obsolete is a bit of an oversta
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
: >In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: >"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>:
>: >I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
>: >However when tha
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
:
: >I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
: >However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
: >theoretical
On Fri Feb 28, 2003 at 04:42:14PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>
> >I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
> >However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
> >theoretical objections.
>
> Well, un
John Baldwin wrote:
> Or you can use PXE at your provisioning center and have the
> BIOS setup to boot from the hard disk first, which will fail
> for the initial boot and fall back to PXE. Then once the box
> is installed you ship it to its destination.
This is a possibility; however, there are
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
>However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
>theoretical objections.
Well, unless somebody actually manages to put a -current on an i386
and run the tests I
On 28-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> David Schultz wrote:
>> Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > John Baldwin wrote:
>> > > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
>> > > broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
>> >
>> > People who
On 28-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>> > >... JMB wrote:
>> > > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just
>> > > accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without
>> >
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Matthew N. Dodd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
: > I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
: > GENERIC
: > GENERIC +SMP
: > GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
: > GENERIC fo
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
: GENERIC
: GENERIC +SMP
: GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
: GENERIC for i386
:
: Would that add too much extra work for a 5.x r
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:14:46PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > I was evidently under the mistaken impression this was about nuts
> > and bolts. If we are to focus on window dressing, we are definitely
> > hozed.
>
> We focus on what's actually useful to the plurality of use
< said:
> I was evidently under the mistaken impression this was about nuts
> and bolts. If we are to focus on window dressing, we are definitely
> hozed.
We focus on what's actually useful to the plurality of users. Support
for a processor that was functionally obsolete ten years ago is
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> It points out that no one uses I386 kernels. Is it more valuable
> to have GENERIC_I386 or KDE on disc 1? If it came down to that I
> would pick KDE.
>
This is getting silly. As much respect as I have for you, KDE is
not and shouldn't be part o
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:38:18PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> Okay, that also makes good sense. But if that is true, then maybe
> we should officially tell our users that they *must* stay with the
> 4.x-series if they are running 386 hardware.
Something like that, yes. I think the impor
At 9:38 PM -0500 2003/02/27, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
It's never good to add to your release cycle something you don't
build/validate during development. Releases are painful enough
that you don't want to turn them into testbeds. If it's not
worth testing during development, it's not worth rel
At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >... JMB wrote:
> > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just
> > accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without
> > anyone noticing.
>
Well, doesn't that suggest that i
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 4:04 PM -0500 2/27/03, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> >I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
> >broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
> >People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volu
drosih> GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
It'll be unneeded for further VMware releases. At least, very recent
5-current runs quite fine on my VMware 4 beta.
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the m
David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > John Baldwin wrote:
> > > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
> > > broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
> >
> > People who build embedded devices that need to be suppo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:29:53PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
> >broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
> >People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volunteer
> >either. I386_CPU kerne
Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
> > broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
>
> People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
> the field, and want to
On 27-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
>> broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
>
> People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
> the field, and want to worry abou
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
>>broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
>>People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volunteer
>>either. I386_CPU kernel compiles have been broken in
John Baldwin wrote:
> I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
> broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
the field, and want to worry about their software, and not the
platform it runs
At 4:04 PM -0500 2/27/03, John Baldwin wrote:
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
GENERIC
GENERIC +SMP
I plan to make SMP kernels work on a UP machine like they do on all
of our other platforms thus obsoleting the need for
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>>: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
>>: Working file: GENERIC
>>: description:
>>:
>>: revision 1.296
>>: date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; l
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
> GENERIC
> GENERIC +SMP
> GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
> GENERIC for i386
GENERIC OLDCARD
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> : RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
> : Working file: GENERIC
> : description:
> :
> : revision 1.296
> : date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
> :
At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
: Working file: GENERIC
: description:
:
: revision 1.296
: date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
:
: Remove I386_CPU from GENERIC. Support
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:27:55PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:35:13AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > > * De: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
> > > [ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:35:13AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > * De: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
> > > Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
> > >
> > > Loa
I believe i386 compatible code was disabled in the kernel because it was
hindering the performance of more advanced Intel based architectures.
Supposedly you can build it back in but that would either require
building a release
yourself or finding someone who already built the i386 version.
Might
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schultz writes:
>Just out of curiosity, is your agenda to convince everyone to nix
>386 support altogether or to fix 386 support? I'm not against
>either, although I consider the latter goal to be a bit silly.
My agenda is to find some data either in support
Just out of curiosity, is your agenda to convince everyone to nix
386 support altogether or to fix 386 support? I'm not against
either, although I consider the latter goal to be a bit silly.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the messa
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoffrey writes:
>On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
>> * De: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
>> [ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
>> >Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
>> >
>> >Loaded kern.flp,
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
> [ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
> > Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
> >
> > Loaded kern.flp, mfsroot.flp, prompted for boot, then core dumped
> >
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:27:06AM -0600, Juli Mallett wrote:
> Was this normal release? I thought I recalled a convo resulting in
> the decision that 386 would require special release bits?
> --
> Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnetThe 386 CPU is
> already gon
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
> Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
>
> Loaded kern.flp, mfsroot.flp, prompted for boot, then core dumped
> as follows:
Was this normal release? I thoug
Brad Knowles wrote:
> Other than that, you should try swapping out as much hardware as
> you can -- the cards, the cables, etc If possible, you should
> also test with other computers (in case the problem is with one
> specific machine when it is running 5.0).
Swapping 5.0 out for 4.7
At 10:33 PM -0500 2002/12/04, Craig Reyenga wrote:
Unfortunately, I have no extra hardware available to me, so I can't
experiment with switches and whatnot. Also, wouldn't some sort
of software experimentation be more appropriate, considering that
my existing setup works _perfetcly_ in 4.7?
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Terry Lambert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christopher J
Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 19:32
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PR
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
>
> I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> cables. Can you connect the machines through a switch, and ensure
> that t
Joshua Goodall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:32:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
> >
> > I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> > c
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:32:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
>
> I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> cables. Can you connect the machin
At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
cables. Can you connect the machines through a switch, and ensure
that they are hard-wired to 100Base-TX full d
Sure, I'm not sure what to tell you though. If you can tell me what info you
need,
then I'll find it for you. I sense a small game of chicken meets egg forming
here.
-Craig
- Original Message -
From: "Cliff L. Biffle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well...
> My Realtek card in my 5.0 workstation
On Monday 02 December 2002 12:09 pm, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Right on. I hope that you find something because right now it seems
> so hopeless. I'd have to say that this is the strangest problem that I've
> ever had with FreeBSD.
Well...
My Realtek card in my 5.0 workstation is fully capable of sat
Brad Knowles writes:
> At 3:32 PM -0700 2002/12/02, Cliff L. Biffle wrote:
>
> > One thing I've used in the past that improves Realtek throughput is forcing
> > the media type and duplex setting on both ends of the connection. Autodetect
> > in the 8139s seems to be unreliable at times.
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:55 AM -0500 2002/12/02, Craig Reyenga wrote:
>
> > I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> > transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> > get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
>
>
At 3:32 PM -0700 2002/12/02, Cliff L. Biffle wrote:
One thing I've used in the past that improves Realtek throughput is forcing
the media type and duplex setting on both ends of the connection. Autodetect
in the 8139s seems to be unreliable at times.
This is true for most 10/100 Base-T imp
On Monday 02 December 2002 03:05 am, Brad Knowles wrote:
> According to all the source modules I've read regarding RealTek
> cards, they're about the biggest pieces of hardware garbage that has
> ever been inflicted on the free/open community. However, a 3Com card
> should be a little better
At 12:55 AM -0500 2002/12/02, Craig Reyenga wrote:
I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
According to all the source modules I've r
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 13:11
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
On Monday 02 December 2002 10:47 am, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
> becau
On Monday 02 December 2002 10:47 am, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
> because I seem to be the lucky guy with the problem.
I'm actually on my way to the office now to set up a test scenario with our
5-current boxen. We've got a whole scad
Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
because I seem to be the lucky guy with the problem. The super
weird thing about all of this is that cpu usage is very minimal
during transfers. The 905 card was weird too: it actually ran
at 8MB/sec for about 4 sec, then the kernel
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:18:34PM +0300, Igor Roboul wrote:
> Maybe this is _CABLE_?
oops :-( All works fine with 4-STABLE?
--
Igor Roboul, System administrator at Speech Technology Center
http://www.speechpro.com http://www.speechpro.ru
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:55:39AM -0500, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
Maybe this is _CABLE_?
--
Igor
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:15:22AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
> >
> > Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
> > reputation. Howev
Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
>
> Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
> reputation. However I have used them for some time, and they have
> behaved impeccably. I ha
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
>
Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
reputation. However I have used them for some time, and they have
behaved impeccably. I have noticed no change in throughpu
[ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
Nate Lawson wrote:
> > FWIW, the root cause is likely a result of something in the
> > last 8 months, which means log2(240)+1 = 8 compiles to find
> > the problem on your hardware; if, in the last 2.5 years,
> > which we know to be the case, it's log2(2.5*365
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Craig Reyenga wrote:
> > I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> > transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> > get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > I'd r
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
[ ... ]
> I'd really rather not play around with different versions of F
CTED]>
To: "Craig Reyenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 00:06
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
> Craig Reyenga wrote:
> > It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about
DP1.
&
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about DP1.
Well, you will have to back up to a version of the source code
before DP2 that didn't have the problem, perform a binary search
to find the exact delta that caused the problem, and examine the
code di
It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about DP1.
-Craig
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Craig Reyenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 23:
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> In a recent thread started by me, named "Network is crazy slow in DP2"
> I wrote that I'm getting substantially lower speeds than I should be
> over my 100mbit link (realtek 8139 on both sides).
DP1 have the problem?
4.7?
cvs diff DP2 DP1?
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send
:Are you aware of any recent changes that would have caused this
:problem? I do not believe that the soft updates changes would
:have caused this problem since they were all related to `under
:stress' conditions which are not applicable here.
:
: ~Kirk
I haven't made any commits to
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
| Just wondering, does anyone know if we will have a working driver for the
| Aureal Vortex soundcard by the time 4.0 is released? I'm just curious
| because I thought the driver for this card was supposed to be finished a
| long time ago..
If my m
80 matches
Mail list logo
