Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I cannot find anything
single-mode from Intel except the X520-LR1 (82599ES chipset) which is only
a single port.
Everything else is Multi-mode. Even a lot of the SFP stuff only supports
MM.
At least that's where my research leads me. If you have any
Hi, curious, Ive tried netmapfwd with ngeth0 / vrrp and it doesnt seem
to be passing packets through to the VIF. basically its a pair of
redundent BGP routers. Does ngeth and VRRP work with netmap-fwd ? or
am i going to need to look at using openvswitch ? Thanks
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
--- Comment #4 from Bjoern A. Zeeb ---
(In reply to akoshibe from comment #2)
When in your shell script does the panic happen? Do you know? I wonder if
it's before the ifconfig commands.
In general I wonder if the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
Bjoern A. Zeeb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
--- Comment #5 from akosh...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Bjoern A. Zeeb from comment #4)
I'm suspecting that the panic occurs when I create the bridge for the second
time. I'm going to try to check if that's the case later today.
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212283
--- Comment #15 from Mathieu Arnold ---
This is still a problem on 11.0-RELEASE.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
--- Comment #2 from akosh...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Palle Girgensohn from comment #1)
I've noticed that I won't trigger a panic if, keeping everything else the same,
I omit sending traffic (e.g. the one ping in the test script) or
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
--- Comment #6 from Palle Girgensohn ---
(In reply to Bjoern A. Zeeb from comment #3)
Mmm, indeed it is. But I haven't seen that much action about epair lately, has
it really been improved enough? The described problem
Its not that they, whoever they is :). "use" the Intel PCID, no, it really
IS the Intel device,
but it's silicon, not an assembled adapter, its that part which is being
done by someone
else, and btw, the components to support 4 port type adapters have been
notoriously
problematic in the past, so
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Yes, "should be", but just remember now, if this adapter does not look
> like a
> genuine Intel made part (and from some comment from either Jeff or Eric it
> sounded like it wasn't), then IF you have a problem you are going
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Its not that they, whoever they is :). "use" the Intel PCID, no, it really
> IS the Intel device,
> but it's silicon, not an assembled adapter, its that part which is being
> done by someone
> else, and btw, the components
I think I should let Intel speak to this, they do have quad port adapters
in their offerings, and
as far as I know they are fine. I was speaking of times past when the
bridge device would be
the source of problems, and just saying if this was a non-Intel design it
could be an issue, but
since you
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213015
Palle Girgensohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
14 matches
Mail list logo