https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #40 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Here:
(freebsd11 ) 1 # sysctl -a |grep xbd
hw.xbd.xbd_enable_indirect: 0
dev.xbd.2.xenstore_peer_path: /local/domain/0/backend/vbd3/13/768
dev.xbd.2.xenbus_peer_domid: 0
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #35 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Created attachment 179838
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=179838=edit
vmstat -ai while running dc3dd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #41 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Can you try to change the event timer and the time counter to a different one
than the Xen one:
# sysctl -w kern.timecounter.hardware=ACPI-fast
# sysctl -w
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #179844|0 |1
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #45 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #43)
Hm, that's certainly not good, switching to the LAPIC timer shouldn't cause the
VM to freeze, I've tried it and it works just fine. Do you
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #46 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #44)
This panic trace is very disturbing, I'm a little bit confused. Which kind of
guest are you running?
The trace shows xen_start ->
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #57 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Well, I did do dd test, but they only write on a filesystem.
It was (back then) most likely on ZFS, with compression etc. that changed the
results.
Esp. if I just write zeros from /dev/null.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #59 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
System -- freebsd11
Start Benchmark Run: Mon Feb 13 17:28:56 CET 2017
3 interactive users.
5:28PM up 3:06, 3 users, load averages: 0.62, 0.69,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #51 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #49)
So performance is slightly better with this patch? (IIRC you where getting
17M/s and with the patch you get 26M/s)
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #52 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Yes.
So, 60%-70% increase.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #49 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
I switched back the OS-type to FreeBSD 10 64bit.
I also booted back into a stock kernel and then the XENTIMER-LAPIC change went
through without a freeze.
I recompiled (a clean source-tree)
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #56 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #55)
Yes, you won't see those tunables in sysctl.
Then again I'm quite lost, because you did test a plain dd, and that was
actually working
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #18 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to Bhavesh Davda from comment #16)
Sadly dhclient is not my area of expertise, so we will have to wait for someone
to review it. I've created a differential revision
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #7 from Bhavesh Davda ---
I'm hitting the same issue, as are other colleagues who have tried various
versions of FreeBSD from 8.4 to 10.0 to 11.0 as a domU guest on Xen.
The issue has to do with
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
Bhavesh Davda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
Alexander Nusov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #12 from Bhavesh Davda ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #8)
Yes, I know this change to dhclient seems unfortunately 'hackish' but is
necessary because dhcilent relies on an interface
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #13 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to Bhavesh Davda from comment #12)
IMHO, then the correct fix is to accept 0x as a valid checksum (which is
the value set by netfront and other drivers when the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #11 from Bhavesh Davda ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #9)
Yes, in a FreeBSD 11.0 VM, I had already verified this workaround works:
in /etc/rc.conf:
ifconfig_XN0="DHCP -rxcsum"
Note
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #15 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to Bhavesh Davda from comment #14)
And the mbuf(9) man page says:
"If a particular network interface just indicates success or failure of TCP or
UDP checksum
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #14 from Bhavesh Davda ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #8)
I looked at the proposed patch to the netfront driver, and think this
introduces a semantic mismatch between the meaning of the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #16 from Bhavesh Davda ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #15)
Yes, your comment #15 convinces me that returning only CSUM_DATA_VALID and
CSUM_PSEUDO_HDR with csum_data set to 0x is the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #9 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to Bhavesh Davda from comment #7)
Can you try to disable txcsum and rxcsum inside of the guest and see if that
solves the issue? (this will only work on FreeBSD 11.0).
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #180307|0 |1
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
Daniel Ylitalo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
k...@pielorz.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@pielorz.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #3 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Our hardware is local disks (not SSDs) networked via ScaleIO.
I've run a dd from one disk of a VM to another one and it was very, very slow.
OS: "Other (64bit)" (which is actually a little
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #5 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
10.3-RELEASE-p5:
(server ) 0 # time dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat bs=64k count=20480
20480+0 records in
20480+0 records out
1342177280 bytes transferred in 1.769942 secs (758317078 bytes/sec)
dd
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #6 from k...@pielorz.com ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #5)
Ok, so 'like for like' test see's better performance.
I'm not overly familiar with dc3dd - maybe it's using a "really small block
size" - and on your setup,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
Sydney Meyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #11 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Well, I chose "FreeBSD 10 64bit" as OS-type.
In dmesg, I see:
xbd0: attaching as ada0
xbd0: features: write_barrier
xbd0: synchronize cache commands enabled.
sysctl -a |grep xen
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #13 from Sydney Meyer ---
I'm no expert in Cloudstack but perhaps something with the vm template might be
off. Did you tried / is there a possibilty to install FreeBSD with some Linux
template?
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #7 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
The hardware is HP DL380 Gen 8 servers with 600 or 900 GB SAS disks, running
off a HW RAID controller.
On local storage, the realworld-test is even slower.
I can't run the dc3dd test here and
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #8 from k...@pielorz.com ---
(In reply to rainer from comment #7)
Our config here is very similar - HP Proliant DL380 Gen -9- though, with local
SAS disks - which we use for 'Local Storage' for XenServer, and then iSCSI off
to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #18 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Hi,
thanks - but it does not make a notable difference.
Neither for the dc3dd -wipe test, nor for my real-world testcase.
I can create a tenant on CloudStack, so you can try it yourself - if
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #9 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
I noticed that the local values are very unstable.
Also, I don't really have access to the Xen side (yet).
I will look into how I can debug this further. I'm merely a consumer of it at
this
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #14 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Can we get some confirmation of whether the error was caused by trying to boot
from UEFI?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
--- Comment #7 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #6)
> Patch look fine to me, do you want me to commit it Andrey?
Yes, please, do it if you think it is good enough, I'm busy with other
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212681
--- Comment #19 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
Updating to ScaleIO 2.0.3 (and all the latest Hotfixes of XenServer 6.5)
doesn't make a difference.
How would one debug this problem?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #6 from terenc...@yahoo.com ---
Yes I have; and I have tried it on 3 different computers
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #4 from terenc...@yahoo.com ---
root@adi-vw1:~ # ls -lah /boot/xen
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1.8M Oct 16 21:26 /boot/xen
root@adi-vw1:~ # pkg info xen-kernel
xen-kernel-4.7.0_3
Name : xen-kernel
Version:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #5 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Are you also setting the xen_cmdline bootloader option?
See https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 for more information about what to
set there.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #7 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Can you paste the full contents of your /boot/loader.conf?
Thanks, Roger.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
Sydney Meyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
--- Comment #8 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: royger
Date: Mon Oct 31 11:31:11 UTC 2016
New revision: 308126
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/308126
Log:
xen/netfront: fix statistics
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #11 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Just boot FreeBSD and execute the following:
# sysctl -a | grep bootmethod
machdep.bootmethod: BIOS
It should say BIOS, or else you won't be able to boot Xen.
Roger.
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
--- Comment #13 from Roger Pau Monné ---
No, this is way earlier, at the bootloader phase. The panic would happen later
on, when the kernel has actually booted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|freebsd-am...@freebsd.org |
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #175694|0 |1
is
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.3-STABLE |11.0-STABLE
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|Latest |9.3-STABLE
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
Sylvain Garrigues changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #6 from Sylvain Garrigues ---
(In reply to Colin Percival from comment #5)
I had a system running CURRENT as of Nov. 3 so it was pre-r309124 and I
upgraded to CURRENT as of Dec. 10.
At first
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #7 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: cperciva
Date: Tue Dec 13 06:54:14 UTC 2016
New revision: 310013
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310013
Log:
Check that blkfront
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #4 from Roger Pau Monné ---
I don't seem to be able to reproduce this with r309875, can you check if you
still get the panic with that or any later revision?
Thanks, Roger.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|freebsd-am...@freebsd.org |
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #2 from Colin Percival ---
This seems to have been introduced by the import of clang 3.9.0 in r309124.
I'll work on tracking this down further next week; I'm working on NFS right now
and it's best if I
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #10 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: dim
Date: Sun Dec 18 14:31:12 UTC 2016
New revision: 310228
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310228
Log:
MFC r310013 (by cperciva):
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215209
--- Comment #9 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: dim
Date: Sun Dec 18 14:31:12 UTC 2016
New revision: 310228
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310228
Log:
MFC r310013 (by cperciva):
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
--- Comment #9 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: royger
Date: Thu Mar 16 09:40:54 UTC 2017
New revision: 315403
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/315403
Log:
MFC r308126:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #22 from Roger Pau Monné ---
(In reply to Bhavesh Davda from comment #20)
In this case I would prefer so. I don't know much about net, much less about
dhclient, so I would like someone that knows to review
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188990
--- Comment #21 from Bhavesh Davda ---
(In reply to Alexander Nusov from comment #19)
Hi Alexander, IMHO just like the referenced bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910619#c6 in that openstack nova
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217740
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217744
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #15 from Roger Pau Monné ---
I've installed pfSense-CE-2.4.0-BETA-amd64 on an OVMF VM with 2GB of RAM,
4vpcus and 5 network interfaces, and still unable to reproduce.
Can you get a hypervisor with debug
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #6 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Also, if you have access to Dom0 can you paste the output of `xl dmesg`? (would
be good if this was done on a hypervisor built with debug=y)
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #8 from John ---
Created attachment 185126
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=185126=edit
xen dmesg
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #7 from John ---
The VM is booting in EFI mode so removing ovmf wouldn't work. I haven't tried
this issue in BIOS mode, so it may be EFI-only. I can access the dom0, but it's
not built with debug=y. I do have
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #12 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Can you reproduce the same issue using one of the vanilla FreeBSD images?
I've tried to reproduce this with both the upstream FreeBSD images and the
pfSense install iso, and so
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #9 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Is it a FreeBSD Dom0 or a Linux Dom0?
Can you paste the output of `xenstore-ls -fp` when the DomU panics?
Thanks, Roger.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #10 from John ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #9)
It is a Linux Dom0 (Debian 9). I'll have it panic and get the xenstore.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #11 from John ---
Created attachment 185128
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=185128=edit
XenStore output
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #13 from John ---
I can't boot pfSense 2.3 in UEFI mode, that's why I'm using their 2.4 beta.
XL Info:
host : xen-1-prod
release: 4.9.0-3-amd64
version: #1 SMP
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #14 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Can you try of the same happens with a plain vanilla FreeBSD 11.0 image?
You can get them from:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220119
--- Comment #3 from ktcall...@gmail.com ---
Thank you for answer. No error messages can be found.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220119
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220119
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #17 from John ---
Sorry for the delay, the issue still exists. I reproduced it with
https://download.freebsd.org/ftp/releases/VM-IMAGES/11.1-RELEASE/amd64/Latest/FreeBSD-11.1-RELEASE-amd64.raw.xz
but I still
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221220
--- Comment #18 from John ---
Oh no, strike that. I booted that one without OVMF and the problem was a
different one (it as the Xen-pf bug where all network access is dropped when
checksum offloading is on). I jumped to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224003
Sydney Meyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224003
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224003
--- Comment #2 from Bob Nestor ---
I suspect Sydney Meyer's analysis is correct. From what I can find out about
the SOC implementation used on the Antsle it only supports VT-x and doesn't
appear to have implemented the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224003
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224003
--- Comment #4 from Roger Pau Monné ---
FWIW, if you are searching for a compact virtualization server I would
recommend the Intel NUC boxes, they are cheap and most of them (the ones based
on the Core i CPUs) have
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213439
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
---
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261
--- Comment #34 from k...@pielorz.com ---
(In reply to Eitan Adler from comment #33)
Hi - this issue still exists, I've just re-tested in 10.4 and 11.1. I'm not
able to test 12.x at the moment, but I have no reason to believe it's been
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261
--- Comment #35 from Roger Pau Monné ---
Does this still happen if you disable LRO/TSO? (packets with size > 1500)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154428
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roy...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183397
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|Open|Closed
Resolution|---
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183337
Roger Pau Monné changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |Overcome By Events
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261
--- Comment #36 from k...@pielorz.com ---
(In reply to Roger Pau Monné from comment #35)
Hi,
Disabling LRO/TSO doesn't make any difference - I think we'd tried that
previously as a possible fix.
-Karl
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--- Comment #33 from Eitan
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183337
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--- Comment #1 from Eitan
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186375
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--- Comment #5 from Eitan
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154428
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--- Comment #26 from Eitan
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183397
Eitan Adler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--- Comment #8 from Eitan
101 - 200 of 219 matches
Mail list logo