On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Hmm I am
At 08:03 AM 2/6/2007, Chris wrote:
On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput
bridge. This improved the situation somewhat, but an extra
30-40mbps of UDP data and it would ultimately crumble. Overall the
machine would be able to move between 300k-600k PPS before becoming a
cripple, depending on packet length, protocol, and any flags. Without a
specific pf or ipfw rule to deal
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions
you wrote:
I suppose my concerns are two-fold. Why is 6.x collapsing under traffic
that 4.11 could easily block and run merrily along with, and is there a
queueing mechanism in place that doesn't tie up the box so much on
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in
At 09:53 PM 2/5/2007, Justin Robertson wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little
or no impact at all.
Are you sure you had kern.polling.idle_poll=1 enabled ? It makes a
big difference in RELENG_6 with it on or off in my tests.
---Mike
sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine
Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier
to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have
their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
two , IPFW of PF
question though is not whether any of the
two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
you use, and why?
Thanks,
David
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
to say PF is easier
to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have
their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
you use, and why?
PF, for two reasons. Firstly, because I don't have
Machine
Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier
to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have
their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
you use, and why
their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
you use, and why?
Thanks,
David
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Andreas Davour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can someone tell me if it's ok to just use IPFW on my STABLE system, or
is there some other knobs in the kernelconfig I should toggle to turn
off pf support?
By default pf is compiled as a loadable module, which you load if you
want to run pf, leave
Andreas Davour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the base systems ships with two firewalls?
Three, actually - ipfw, ipf and pf. There's a brief explanation why in
the handbook at
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-apps.html
I prefer pf myself, but which one
Andreas Davour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read the handbook about firewalls, and compiled my kernel
without switching on any explicit support for pf.
Now, when I ran the mergemaster it suddenly found a lot of references
to pf in my startup scripts.
The startup scripts support pf, but
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
Andreas Davour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read the handbook about firewalls, and compiled my kernel
without switching on any explicit support for pf.
Now, when I ran the mergemaster it suddenly found a lot of references
to pf in my startup scripts.
I have read the handbook about firewalls, and compiled my kernel without
switching on any explicit support for pf.
Now, when I ran the mergemaster it suddenly found a lot of references to
pf in my startup scripts.
Is pf some kind of mandatory part of the base system these days? I
thought it
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Albert Shih wrote:
Le 03/03/2005 ? 13:07:53-0800, Loren M. Lang a ?crit
Well it's not de syntaxes, I always use packet filter system (sometime on
hardware like Foundry/Cisco) where the rule is : First match first use.
And
the pf use entire
On Sunday 13 March 2005 09:16, Loren M. Lang wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Albert Shih wrote:
Le 03/03/2005 ? 13:07:53-0800, Loren M. Lang a ?crit
Well it's not de syntaxes, I always use packet filter system
(sometime on hardware like Foundry/Cisco) where the rule
Le 03/03/2005 à 13:07:53-0800, Loren M. Lang a écrit
Well it's not de syntaxes, I always use packet filter system (sometime on
hardware like Foundry/Cisco) where the rule is : First match first use. And
the pf use entire rules is very strange for me (I known I can use ?quick?
butwell
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:57:06PM +0100, Albert Shih wrote:
Le 02/03/2005 ? 09:03:23+0100, Stevan Tiefert a ?crit
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Albert Shih wrote:
The both packef filters are maintained! pf is ported from OpenBSD and
ipfw is from FreeBSD.
GreatI can continu to
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Albert Shih wrote:
Hi all,
From FreeBSD 4.5 I use ipfw on freebsd-box with 3 NIC card.
Now I'm in FreeBSD 5.1. I've see in FreeBSD 5.3 there are pf and ipfw, why
there two versions ? The ipfw is always maintened ? Or I need to switch to
pf ?
Why can I do with PF
Le 02/03/2005 à 09:03:23+0100, Stevan Tiefert a écrit
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Albert Shih wrote:
The both packef filters are maintained! pf is ported from OpenBSD and
ipfw is from FreeBSD.
GreatI can continu to use ipfw;-))
Whenever two programs two syntaxes...
Well it's
Hi all,
From FreeBSD 4.5 I use ipfw on freebsd-box with 3 NIC card.
Now I'm in FreeBSD 5.1. I've see in FreeBSD 5.3 there are pf and ipfw, why
there two versions ? The ipfw is always maintened ? Or I need to switch to
pf ?
Why can I do with PF that I can't do with ipfw ?
I've ask this because
23 matches
Mail list logo
