Re: Multiple IP/subnet in jail, source address for connections

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Frank de Bot (lists) > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm trying to have jail with a public and a private IP address. > > Both > > are on the same interface. The public is called 79.x.x.213 and > > private > > 10.4.3.6 > > Out from ifconfig within the jail is: > > >

Re: Multiple IP/subnet in jail, source address for connections

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Frank de Bot (lists) > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm trying to have jail with a public and a private IP address. > > Both > > are on the same interface. The public is called 79.x.x.213 and > > private > > 10.4.3.6 > > Out from ifconfig within the jail is: > > >

Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:45:08 +0300 Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote about Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate: SO> For discover poor network performance you need: [...] I am already through this, see I just wanted to let /you/ know

Re: freebsd-update to 10.2-RELEASE broken ?

Am 16.08.2015 um 20:07 schrieb Kurt Jaeger: > Hi! > > [bob wrote] >> [ck wrote] >>> I have been trying to update several of my FreeBSD 10.1 amd64 >>> VM to 10.2-RELEASE with freebsd-update and have been failing with >>> an incorrect hash error. > >> FWIW I had the same issue yesterday on a couple

Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Daniel Braniss wrote: >> >>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 10:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >>> >>> On 08/24/15 01:02, Rick Macklem wrote: The other thing is the degradation seems to cut the rate by about half each time. 300-->150-->

Re: Error upgrading from 10.1-RELEASE to 10.2-RELEASE

Hi, We believe this is because phttpget (the pipelined HTTP client that freebsd-update and portsnap uses) was unable to get the right file(s) from the server, that sometimes the client would get wrong file from the server, and it's not reproducable when requesting again. We have then able to deve

Re: Error upgrading from 10.1-RELEASE to 10.2-RELEASE

Hi, On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:07:55PM +0200, Christian Kratzer wrote: > The only way I have been able to upgrade systems is by repeatedly running > freebsd-update. Same here, one system needed three attempts of running freebsd-upgrade and the other one four, on both I pointed to an update serve

Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Errata Notice FreeBSD-EN-15:14.ixgbe

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, Danke für Ihre E-Mail. Zur Zeit können wir die Bearbeitung von E-Mails, welche an dieses E-Mail-Konto direkt geschickt werden, nicht sicherstellen. Somit bitten wir Sie in dringenden Fällen ihre Anfrage direkt an supp...@byteaction.de zu richten. Wir werden uns um

FreeBSD_STABLE_9-i386 - Build #137 - Fixed

FreeBSD_STABLE_9-i386 - Build #137 - Fixed: Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_STABLE_9-i386/137/ Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_STABLE_9-i386/137/changes Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_STABLE_9-i386/137/console Change s

Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:04:41PM +0200, Gerrit K"uhn wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem > wrote about Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate: > > > RM> If you have tso enabled, you could try this patch: > RM> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3477 > RM> > RM> If TSO is d

For you

for you        

Latest stable (r287104) bash leaves zombies on exit

I updated to stable yesterday, plus updated all my porst to the latest pecompiled packages, but I am now seeing odd problems with bash on exit. Sometimes it quits, but leaves a zombie process... e.g PID TT STATTIME COMMAND 44308 v0 IW 0:00.00 -bash (bash) 44312 v0 IW+ 0:00.00 /bin/sh /

Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem wrote about Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate: RM> If you have tso enabled, you could try this patch: RM> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3477 RM> RM> If TSO is disabled, then we don't have an explanation for poor NFS RM> performance yet.

Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate

Gerritt Kuhn wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:29:26 +0300 Slawa Olhovchenkov > wrote about dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate: > > SO> Last -stable, no tuning. Is this normal? > > From 10.2-rel (and still having severe performance issues with NFS as > reported before): > > dev.ix.0.queue7.interrupt_

Build failed in Jenkins: Build-UFS-image #2190

See -- Started by upstream project "Build_Image_and_Run_Tests_in_Bhyve_stable_10" build number 763 originally caused by: Started by upstream project "FreeBSD_stable_10" build number 1643 originally c

Re: Multiple IP/subnet in jail, source address for connections

Michael Loftis wrote: > Normally when jails are added their IPs are created as "normal" > aliases, so they'll get a /32 netmask when you don't specify. So > Depending on how you're creating the jail you'll need to specify the > netmask with the IP wherever you configure your jail. (You didn't > m

Re: dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:29:26 +0300 Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote about dev.ix.0.queueX.interrupt_rate: SO> Last -stable, no tuning. Is this normal? >From 10.2-rel (and still having severe performance issues with NFS as reported before): dev.ix.0.queue7.interrupt_rate: 31250 dev.ix.0.queue6.interrupt

Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance

Hi, I've made some minor modifications to the patch from Rick, and made this review: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3477 --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send a