On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
Already tried that and it did improve things a little. I tried
setting the HZ to 1000 and it didn't make much of a difference. Is
there a larger number that actually works well?
You can try higher HZ numbers, but you might run into other problems.
Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
Already tried that and it did improve things a little. I tried
setting the HZ to 1000 and it didn't make much of a difference. Is
there a larger number that actually works well?
You can try higher HZ numbers, but you
On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Aloha Guy wrote:
Here is the HZ setting:
kern.clockrate: { hz = 100, tick = 1, profhz = 1024, stathz = 128 }
There's your issue right there: if you care about the millisecond level
granularity of network traffic going by this router, you ought to set
HZ to 1000 as
Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Aloha Guy wrote:
Here is the HZ setting:
kern.clockrate: { hz = 100, tick = 1, profhz = 1024, stathz = 128 }
There's your issue right there: if you care about the millisecond level
granularity of network traffic going by
On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Aloha Guy wrote:
Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's your issue right there: if you care about the millisecond
level
granularity of network traffic going by this router, you ought to set
HZ to 1000 as documented in man dummynet.
[ ... ]
Knew I forgot to
Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Aloha Guy wrote:
Charles Swiger wrote:
There's your issue right there: if you care about the millisecond
level
granularity of network traffic going by this router, you ought to set
HZ to 1000 as documented in man dummynet.
Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
You're right that additional delay while adding a hop is to be
expected, which is less than 0.1ms to the FreeBSD box but everything
past the FreeBSD machine is adding atleast 5ms up to 300ms in the
traceroutes when
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
What do you have HZ set to (see sysctl kern.clockrate)? I think I
remember your original message showing you using pipes and queues
and the HZ setting can affect those. Also see if your latency
improves if you remove all pipe and queue rules (other
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
You're right that additional delay while adding a hop is to be
expected, which is less than 0.1ms to the FreeBSD box but everything
past the FreeBSD machine is adding atleast 5ms up to 300ms in the
traceroutes when the normal is no more than 20ms for the
Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
What do you have HZ set to (see sysctl kern.clockrate)? I think I
remember your original message showing you using pipes and queues
and the HZ setting can affect those. Also see if your latency
improves if you
Greetings everyone:
I'm using a FreeBSD based notebook (P4-M2.6Ghz, 2GB RAM) on the built in 3COM 920c
(905c compatible) using the xl0 driver with the firewall enabled and set to open and
rc.conf basically has:
xl0 configured as 208.204.x.224 netmask 255.255.255.0 with the alias 192.168.0.1
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
Any ideas what is causing this? Is it the xl0 driver because I've
used FreeBSD machines as ethernet routers before with a similar
setup except there was no NAT involved and used the fxp drivers and
it never had this problem. Thanks for your help in
Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote:
Any ideas what is causing this? Is it the xl0 driver because I've
used FreeBSD machines as ethernet routers before with a similar
setup except there was no NAT involved and used the fxp drivers and
it never had this
13 matches
Mail list logo
