Justin,
Thanks for your comments regarding the state of Xen on FreeBSD.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> I sympathize with your desire for more code comments to make it easier to
> ramp up on Xen. Unfortunately, there is little documentation about Xen
> other than the "Linux refere
On 1/25/2011 6:30 PM, Janne Snabb wrote:
>
> (I wish there was a bit more comments in the non-obvious parts of
> the code. Now it is difficult for a FreeBSD/Xen PV newbie to work
> on it without intimate knowledge of the history of the odd bits of
> the code. It clearly needs more care than what it
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Carsten Heesch wrote:
> >>int max = 24 /* MAX_SKB_FRAGS + (rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD) */;
>
> I've just recompiled XENHVM setting this for a quick test:
>
> > int max = MAX_SKB_FRAGS;
>
> Before, I was receiving said error message a lot; now it's gone.
> Also, thr
>> int max = 24 /* MAX_SKB_FRAGS + (rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD) */;
I've just recompiled XENHVM setting this for a quick test:
> int max = MAX_SKB_FRAGS;
Before, I was receiving said error message a lot; now it's gone. Also,
throughput has massively increased!
My test setup was:
>
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:35 +, Janne Snabb wrote:
> > I would guestimate that either "max" should be higher than what it
> > currently is (5) or the check which produces the error might be
> > unneeded.
>
> In my tests commenting out that check entirely works fine.
>
>
> http://www.hybrid-c
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Luke Marsden wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:35 +, Janne Snabb wrote:
> > I would guestimate that either "max" should be higher than what it
> > currently is (5) or the check which produces the error might be
> > unneeded.
>
> In my tests commenting out that check entir
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:35 +, Janne Snabb wrote:
> I would guestimate that either "max" should be higher than what it
> currently is (5) or the check which produces the error might be
> unneeded.
In my tests commenting out that check entirely works fine.
http://www.hybrid-cluster.com/blog/2
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Grzegorz Rybicki wrote:
> xennet_get_responses: too many frags 11 > max 5
[..]
The following in sys/dev/xen/netfront/netfront.c xennet_get_responses()
looks a little bit suspicious:
> int max = 5 /* MAX_TX_REQ_FRAGS + (rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD) */;
...together
Hello,
I saw another network interface problems:
xennet_get_responses: too many frags 11 > max 5
xennet_get_responses: too many frags 9 > max 5
xennet_get_responses: too many frags 8 > max 5
xennet_get_responses: too many frags 6 > max 5
xennet_get_responses: too many frags 6 > max 5
xennet_get_r
