Here is my probably final round of tests that I thought could possible
be useful to others.
I have enabled polling on the interfaces and discovered some of the
master secret holy grail sysctls that really make this stuff work.
I now get over 900mbits/sec router performance with polling.
Hi all,
I've installed compat4x from package (compat4x-i386-5.3_2) on my 6.0RC1
there is no libcrypto.so.2, which is used by quite a few of my legacy
4.x apps. I've checked 5.4 and this library used to be part of compat
suite in /usr/lib/compat. Is it feature or bug?
Thanks,
Petr
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Michael VInce wrote:
Interestingly when testing from the gateway it self (B) direct to server
(C) having 'net.isr.direct=1' slowed down performance to 583mbits/sec
net.isr.direct works to improve performance in many cases because it (a)
reduces latency, and (b) reduces
Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
Michael VInce wrote:
I reinstalled the netperf to make sure its the latest.
I have also decided to upgrade Server-C (the i386 5.4 box) to 6.0RC1 and
noticed it gave a large improvement of network performance with a SMP
kernel.
As with the network setup ( A ---
I run a very small home office network and domain off of my DSL.
Currently, I have a FreeBSD 5.4p8 firewall (pf) running. I am really
not having any issues, but sometimes the machines gets a bit stodgy for
no solid reason [load shouldn't be that high]. I have considered the
jump to 6.0, but
At 08:59 AM 20/10/2005, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I run a very small home office network and domain off of my DSL.
Currently, I have a FreeBSD 5.4p8 firewall (pf) running. I am
really not having any issues, but sometimes the machines gets a bit
stodgy for no solid reason [load shouldn't be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas T. Veldhouse
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 08:00
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: General consensus about upgrading from 5.x to 6.x?
I run a very small home office
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:00:16AM +0200, Petr Holub wrote:
Hi all,
I've installed compat4x from package (compat4x-i386-5.3_2) on my 6.0RC1
there is no libcrypto.so.2, which is used by quite a few of my legacy
4.x apps. I've checked 5.4 and this library used to be part of compat
suite in
At 10:49 PM +1000 2005-10-20, Michael VInce wrote:
The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am assuming
they are on the best bus available.
In my experience, the terms Dell and best available very
rarely go together.
Dell has made a name for themselves by shipping
I think that's unfair.
I have a couple of Dell machines and my biggest complaint with them has been
their use of proprietary bolt patterns for their motherboards and similar
tomfoolery, preventing you from migrating their hardware as your needs grow.
This also guarantees that your $75 power
At 9:57 AM -0500 2005-10-20, Karl Denninger wrote:
Other than that, I've been pretty happy with their stuff. Sure beats a lot
of other PC vendors out there in terms of reliability, heat management,
BIOS updates, etc.
Have you tried Rackable or IronSystems? I've heard that they've
been
Hi,
I work at an ISP with some 250 Dell machines.
We started with Silver support on non critical machines and Gold
support on the critical ones.
When someone at Gold says: Sorry, can't find your tag number... We
had several official apologies from Dell and upgraded all the machines
to Platinum.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Michael VInce wrote:
Are you by any chance using PCI NIC's? PCI Bus is limited to somewhere
around 1 Gbit/s. So if you consider; Theoretical maxium = ( 1Gbps -
pci_overhead )
The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am
assuming they are on the best
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:26:31PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:49 PM +1000 2005-10-20, Michael VInce wrote:
The 4 ethernet ports on the Dell server are all built-in so I am assuming
they are on the best bus available.
In my experience, the terms Dell and best
On Oct 19, 2005, at 5:10 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
Wat is the best way to get the cleanest FreeBSD-6.x system without
installing from scratch? Recompile each port? Or use the
COMPAT_FREEBSD5 layer?
this is a different question than you asked before... the
COMPAT_FREEBSD5 will allow your
On Oct 20, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I run a very small home office network and domain off of my DSL.
Currently, I have a FreeBSD 5.4p8 firewall (pf) running. I am
really not having any issues, but sometimes the machines gets a bit
stodgy
the pfSense firewall is
Should these two commands produce identical output?
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 | wc -l
121
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
On 10/20/05, James Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should these two commands produce identical output?
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 | wc -l
121
Yep. Looks like a bug in the grep code. It looks at the name
On Thursday, 20. October 2005 21:20, Vivek Khera wrote:
personally, I don't see the point of doing that. just let your ports
naturally get replaced as they are upgraded due to version bumps and
such.
That is dangerous, see other replies in this thread for the reasons why.
--
,_, |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 03:20:52PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 19, 2005, at 5:10 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
Wat is the best way to get the cleanest FreeBSD-6.x system without
installing from scratch? Recompile each port? Or use the
COMPAT_FREEBSD5 layer?
this is a different
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote James Long thusly...
Should these two commands produce identical output?
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 | wc -l
121
And more fun, try also egrep -J| wc, which is
On Thursday 20 October 2005 04:57 pm, Parv wrote:
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote James Long thusly...
Should these two commands produce identical output?
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 | wc -l
Should these two commands produce identical output?
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 | wc -l
121
Can you try the patch for src/gnu/usr.bin/grep/grep.c?
The patch appears to fix my problem.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 06:10 pm, James Long wrote:
The patch appears to fix my problem. Thank you!
Committed to HEAD. Thanks!
Jung-uk Kim
Jim
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote Jung-uk Kim thusly...
On Thursday 20 October 2005 04:57 pm, Parv wrote:
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote James Long thusly...
...
$ bzegrep 38436|41640 /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l
0
$ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep 38436|41640 |
25 matches
Mail list logo
