wm(4) had a bunch of work done on it since 7.0, so it's worth
trying a newer kernel. I believe most of it will be in 7.1 too.
NPF is not used unless you edit some config files, but it
shouldn't make a difference on a small workload.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 07:01:42PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> 76nem...@gmx.ch writes:
>
> > I am working with an APU2 board (4gb, 3 lan and AMD CPu 1Ghz
> > you can see specifications here http://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm)
> > to make a router/firewall.
> >
> > Before choosing the OS I
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:38:35AM +0100, 76nem...@gmx.ch wrote:
> Hi,
> Unfortunately the situation has not really changed after the adding
> of the computation of the checksums by the card.
>
> I have done a new test with NFS (between a Knoppix 7.2 client and a Ubuntu
> 16.04 server).
> The
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:16:14PM +0100, 76nem...@gmx.ch wrote:
> Here are the result of both commandsi (as far as I can understand, I see
> no drop):
inteed there's no drop at the wm0/wm1 level, that's good.
I expected to see a ipintrq in the netstat -q output, but it seems
to be gone in
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:04:12AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:38:35AM +0100, 76nem...@gmx.ch wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Unfortunately the situation has not really changed after the adding
> > of the computation of the checksums by the card.
> >
> > I have done a new test
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:03:33AM +0100, 76nem...@gmx.ch wrote:
>
> Here is the result of the difference on the router. I have had
> a look on it and I see that no "fast forward" are used.
It is indeed odd that you're not fast forwarding. Do you have
firewall rules or IPsec policies installed?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:09:33AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> wm(4) had a bunch of work done on it since 7.0, so it's worth
> trying a newer kernel. I believe most of it will be in 7.1 too.
How can I do that? My first attempt was to download quickly
a kernel from
