Devin Butterfield wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2001 4:36, Will Andrews wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
get insulted
On Monday 19 March 2001 4:36, Will Andrews wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
get insulted when I infer that he did
At 02:43 AM 03/20/2001, you wrote:
I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are
21140's.
I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
definitely : in my packet blaster, I get
At 02:04 AM 03/20/2001, Mrten Wikstrm wrote:
[snip]
triggers every second and steals too much cpu. So my
question is, how can I
decrease this routing delay?
Were you loading the interface, or just passing nominal
streams? What pps
did you pass through the box? Most likely the
[snip]
For sure the "de" driver might have its own problems,
but i think a lot of packet drops also depend on the card
not being properly set for full duplex (which can
cause collisions and lots of drops).
You should initially test mono-directional in a controlled
environment to
Hello,
the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack uses the "system tick timer" for some delay
(maybe only for TCP).
you may want to use a HZ=1000 option (see the LINT config file) in a
recompiled kernel and see if things go better. (moreover, the dc(4)
driver which is used for your NIC has some interesting
(moreover, the dc(4)
driver which is used for your NIC has some interesting performance
improvements in the forthcoming 4.3-Release)
like what ?
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
At 02:32 PM 03/19/2001, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
Hello,
the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack uses the "system tick timer" for some delay
(maybe only for TCP).
you may want to use a HZ=1000 option (see the LINT config file) in a
recompiled kernel and see if things go better. (moreover, the dc(4)
driver which
At 09:22 AM 03/19/2001, Mrten Wikstrm wrote:
I've performed a routing test between a FreeBSD box and a Linux box. I
measured the latency and the result was not what I had expected. Both
systems had the peak at 100 us (microseconds), but whereas the Linux box had
_no_ packet over 200 us, the
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:14:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Cool. Is the 21143 now started in store-and-forward mode and has the
mandatory watchdog timeout been fixed? Im getting tired of hacking it every
release.
Submit a PR to fix the problem?
--
wca
PGP signature
At 07:20 PM 03/19/2001, Will Andrews wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:14:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Cool. Is the 21143 now started in store-and-forward mode and has the
mandatory watchdog timeout been fixed? Im getting tired of hacking it
every
release.
Submit a PR to fix the problem?
I
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
get insulted when I infer that he did something wrong.
It's like they say: "money talks".
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 06:11:55PM -0800, Devin Butterfield wrote:
I'm not defending Dennis here, but this statement infers that nothing gets
done unless maintainers are
a) paid
or
b) someone else does the work for them.
I certainly hope this is not the case.
No, it is not. My
Dennis wrote:
[SNIP]
If you are using the dc driver, make certain it is operating in
store-and-forward mode, the default configuration starts in a mode that
only works on 10mb/s connections.
patches ?
dennis
--
Thierry Herbelot
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
[snip]
triggers every second and steals too much cpu. So my
question is, how can I
decrease this routing delay?
Were you loading the interface, or just passing nominal
streams? What pps
did you pass through the box? Most likely the "delays" are
only seen when
the machine is close to
Mrten Wikstrm wrote:
[SNIP]
I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are 21140's.
I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
definitely : in my packet blaster, I get an order of
I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are 21140's.
I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
definitely : in my packet blaster, I get an order of magnitude less
packet drops
17 matches
Mail list logo
