On Thursday 26 September 2002 08:02 am, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
>
> All that said, even old (16bit)NE2000 clone will easily sustain
> 800+kB/s on my old 133Mhz Pentium with CPU load 20% or so. 400kB/s
> versus 100kB/s throughput difference in this particular case isn't
> matter of 3Com vs. Via NIC,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:08:03PM -0500, David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing to try is to invert the functions of vr0 and xl0.
>
> Another Good Thing To Try is to read man pages and source code on the
> devices you are using. This is found in /usr/src/sys/pci/if_vr.c:
>
> *
>
dy Swanson'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: Performance issues with natd
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
>
> > > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 05:21 pm, Kenneth Culver wrote:
[...]
>
> All that said, it wouldn't hurt to try to use ipfilter or something
> like that... that would avoid any extra money being spent if it
> solves the problem (I doubt that it will but it might).
It would be very easy to swap in
> > I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> > aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> > 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running ipchains)
> > get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally o
> Yeh, but is he downloading from the same place with every test?
> To be honest, you should be testing the performace across a
> reliable link that doesn't change. This way you can tell if it is
> related to the machine versus it being an upstream network
> problem/
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:02:47PM -0300, Cody Swanson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running i
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
> > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> > nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> > speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> > re-check your hardware. Goo
> I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> re-check your hardware. Good luck.
I don't think I agree, he's getting 400 KB/
> I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running
> ipchains) get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally on
> the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Cody Swanson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Performance issues with natd
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new. might
wanna check your hardware. if not your hardware, then
maybe someone here can give you a way to improve the
transfer rate but i really think it has most to do with
your hardware.
> Hell
Hello all,
I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running ipchains)
get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally on th
13 matches
Mail list logo
