From: Denys Vlasenko
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:56:53 +0200
> Since DHCP and any other networking activity like TCP connects
> accomodate packet loss, things should work even without any delay
> in kernel IP config code. The delay will be just shifted to the
> moment when first DHCP/TCP/whatever n
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:45:33PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Rick Jones wrote:
>
> >David Miller wrote:
> >>I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
> >>negotiate a proper link.
> >
> >Gotta love it when things adhere to specs...
>
> the default on Ci
On Tuesday 18 August 2009 03:27, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tim Bird
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:24:26 -0700
>
> > David Miller wrote:
> >> I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
> >> negotiate a proper link.
> >
> > What types of delays are these timeouts supposed to
> >
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Rick Jones wrote:
David Miller wrote:
I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
negotiate a proper link.
Gotta love it when things adhere to specs...
the default on Cisco switches is to wait 30 seconds before fully enabling
the port so that it can l
From: Tim Bird
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:40:48 -0700
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Tim Bird
>> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:24:26 -0700
>>
>>> David Miller wrote:
I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
negotiate a proper link.
>>> What types of delays are these tim
David Miller wrote:
> From: Tim Bird
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:24:26 -0700
>
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
>>> negotiate a proper link.
>> What types of delays are these timeouts supposed to
>> cover?
>
> The problem is that if you don't
David Miller wrote:
I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
negotiate a proper link.
Gotta love it when things adhere to specs...
rick jones
has also experienced nic/whatnot combinations that are far from IEEE specs... :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
From: Tim Bird
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:24:26 -0700
> David Miller wrote:
>> I have card/switch combinations that take up to 10 seconds to
>> negotiate a proper link.
>
> What types of delays are these timeouts supposed to
> cover?
The problem is that if you don't first give at least some time
David Miller wrote:
> From: Tim Bird
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:01 -0700
>
>> Tim Bird wrote:
>>> See the definitions of CONF_PRE_OPEN and CON_POST_OPEN
>>> in net/ipv4/ipconfig.c
>>>
>>> They are set to ridiculously long values. In my experience,
>>> you can cut them down considerably with
From: Tim Bird
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:01 -0700
> Tim Bird wrote:
>> See the definitions of CONF_PRE_OPEN and CON_POST_OPEN
>> in net/ipv4/ipconfig.c
>>
>> They are set to ridiculously long values. In my experience,
>> you can cut them down considerably with no dangerous side
>> effects (b
Tim Bird wrote:
> See the definitions of CONF_PRE_OPEN and CON_POST_OPEN
> in net/ipv4/ipconfig.c
>
> They are set to ridiculously long values. In my experience,
> you can cut them down considerably with no dangerous side
> effects (but I haven't asked the network guys about the
> possible downsi
Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:04:57PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>>> [ �5.082616] < �0.007992> RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
>>> [ �5.605159] < �0.522543> eth0: config: auto-negotiation on, 100FDX,
>>> 100HDX, 10FDX, 10HDX.
>>> [ �6.602621] < �0.997462> IP-Config: C
12 matches
Mail list logo
