Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-25 Thread Maxim Bourmistrov
ur own, so do it. and had following setup: fw1: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 2048 fw2: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 9000 This produced "pfsync: failed to receive bulk update". If I change back to mtu 2048 states get propagated. I also changed hardmtu as dlg@ suggested. it's not immedia

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-24 Thread Maxim Bourmistrov
Bourmistrov wrote: Hi, I patched on side of this tandem do you mean 'one'? then you should obviously patch both. i mean, come on, you wanted to do some research on your own, so do it. and had following setup: fw1: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 2048 fw2: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 9000 Thi

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-24 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: > > Hi, > > I patched on side of this tandem do you mean 'one'? then you should obviously patch both. i mean, come on, you wanted to do some research on your own, so do it. > and had following setup: > >

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-24 Thread Maxim Bourmistrov
Hi, I patched on side of this tandem and had following setup: fw1: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 2048 fw2: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 9000 This produced "pfsync: failed to receive bulk update". If I change back to mtu 2048 states get propagated. I also changed hardmtu as dlg@ suggested.

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-22 Thread David Gwynne
ith success (ifconfig pfsync0 mtu 9000), but the actual value I see is 2048. >> > > ugh. i thought you've fixed up the source code. > i'm curious if it'll still work with a smaller mtu on the physical > interface :-) > > Index: net/if_pfsync.c > ==

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-22 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 20:14 +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: > > On both sides I use em(4) with MTU 9000. > Then tried to set the same value to the pfsync with success (ifconfig pfsync0 > mtu 9000), but the actual value I see is 2048. > ugh. i thought you've fixed up

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-22 Thread Maxim Bourmistrov
On both sides I use em(4) with MTU 9000. Then tried to set the same value to the pfsync with success (ifconfig pfsync0 mtu 9000), but the actual value I see is 2048. pfsync0: flags=41 mtu 2048 priority: 0 pfsync: syncdev: em0 maxupd: 128 defer: off groups: carp pfsync

Re: pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-22 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:40 +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: > Hi list, > is there any reason for MTU on pfsync0 to be limited to 2048? yes, when pfsync(4) was written, there was only one mbuf cluster pool: MCLBYTES (2048) sized one. now we have several. > Any benefit from having it lager, say

pfsync0 MTU

2011-10-20 Thread Maxim Bourmistrov
Hi list, is there any reason for MTU on pfsync0 to be limited to 2048? Any benefit from having it lager, say up to 9000? I enabled MTU 9000 on syncdev and tried on pfsync0. As seen in tcpdump now, sync pkts are large but not as large as 9000(2048 limit). //maxim