with each other. Are they, (i) a one dual-ports NIC, or
(ii) two single-port NICs, or (iii) a chip embedded on the mb?
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Kermorgant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 4.2 and em(4)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:46:08 +0200
Hello,
I'd like to jump on what you said
* Joe Warren-Meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-14 17:53]:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:38:21PM +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
Hey there,
According several messages I've read from Henning or Daniel in present
and @pf list, there are not any benefits in run PF with MP kernels (and
Hey guys,
I have a pair of firewalls running fully patched OpenBSD 4.2. These are
DL140s and i have the optional quad gigabit ethernet card in them.
Now, whenever I use the GENERIC kernel, all is well. However, if I
switch to the GENERIC.MP kernel I lose connectivity and get em0:
watchdog
Hey guys,
I have a pair of firewalls running fully patched OpenBSD 4.2. These are
DL140s and i have the optional quad gigabit ethernet card in them.
Now, whenever I use the GENERIC kernel, all is well. However, if I
switch to the GENERIC.MP kernel I lose connectivity and get em0:
watchdog
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:38:21PM +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
Hey there,
According several messages I've read from Henning or Daniel in present
and @pf list, there are not any benefits in run PF with MP kernels (and
multi-processor boxes, of course). Even you can get a poor
If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be correct. If you
were to put a bunch of ftp-proxys on there too, then MP would help, no?
I understand the same as you: in that specific case the MP could be useful.
--
Thanks,
Jordi Espasa Clofent
On 2008-04-14, Joe Warren-Meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be correct. If you
were to put a bunch of ftp-proxys on there too, then MP would help, no?
very little, the bulk data handling is done in kernel by nat/rdr
rules added to the anchors,
and em(4)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:23:24 + (UTC)
Mailer: slrn/0.9.8.1 (OpenBSD)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-04-14, Joe Warren-Meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be correct. If you
were to put a bunch of ftp-proxys on there too
the the boxes
throughput too. In our case, INTEL MOTHERBOARDS. Your mb may not like
this, though, so use with care and/or wait to 4.3 release.
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: 4.2 and em(4)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16
9 matches
Mail list logo
