On 4/13/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Robert Iakobashvili [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:11:14 +0200
It works good with 2.6.11.8 and debian 2.6.18.3-i686 image.
At the same Intel Pentium-4 PC with the same about kernel configuration
(make oldconfig using
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ian McDonald wrote:
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in fact, according to this:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139
that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago,
during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be more than
On 4/13/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Robert Iakobashvili [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:11:14 +0200
It works good with 2.6.11.8 and debian 2.6.18.3-i686 image.
At the same Intel Pentium-4 PC with the same about kernel configuration
(make oldconfig using
Robert Iakobashvili wrote:
Vanilla 2.6.18.3 works for me perfectly, whereas 2.6.19.5 and
2.6.20.6 do not.
Looking into the tcp /proc entries of 2.6.18.3 versus 2.6.19.5
tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem are the same, whereas tcp_mem are
much different:
kernel tcp_mem
Hi John,
On 4/15/07, John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Iakobashvili wrote:
Vanilla 2.6.18.3 works for me perfectly, whereas 2.6.19.5 and
2.6.20.6 do not.
Looking into the tcp /proc entries of 2.6.18.3 versus 2.6.19.5
tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem are the same, whereas tcp_mem are
much
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 06:32 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I hadn't considered an always-blocking (or unbuffered) networking API.
It's very counter to current APIs, but does make sense with things like
syslets. Without syslets, I don't think it's very useful as you need
some artificial threads to
This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
of you caused a breakage or I'm considering you in any other way
possibly
I booted up 2.6.21rc7 without an ethernet cable plugged in,
and noticed this..
e1000: :02:00.0: e1000_probe: The EEPROM Checksum Is Not Valid
e1000: probe of :02:00.0 failed with error -5
I plugged a cable in, did rmmod e1000;modprobe e1000, and got this..
e1000: :02:00.0:
Milan Kocián wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I think having notifications for this case makes sense (IIRC I used
to use a similar patch some time ago, but can't find it right now).
But we need to indicate somehow that it is a replacement and not a
completely
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 06:32 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I hadn't considered an always-blocking (or unbuffered) networking API.
It's very counter to current APIs, but does make sense with things like
syslets. Without syslets, I don't think it's very useful as you need
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:53:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8325
Summary: -j REDIRECT --to-ports 1000-1009, always first choosen
Kernel Version: 2.6.19-1.2911.fc6PAE 2.6.19-gentoo-r4
Status: NEW
Sorry, i will put my IMHO, since i am using it too.
I guess it can be useful for load-balancing scenario.
Is there way to provide both ways?
Thinking... 60% done, But maybe this can be done over -m statistic already
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:12:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote
Andrew Morton wrote:
Denys wrote:
Sorry, i will put my IMHO, since i am using it too.
I guess it can be useful for load-balancing scenario.
That makes sense with using multiple IPs (and we support doing that),
but whats the point of load-balancing to differenet *ports*?
Is there way to provide both ways?
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:30:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote
Denys wrote:
Sorry, i will put my IMHO, since i am using it too.
I guess it can be useful for load-balancing scenario.
That makes sense with using multiple IPs (and we support doing that),
but whats the point of
Denys wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:30:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote
That makes sense with using multiple IPs (and we support doing that),
but whats the point of load-balancing to differenet *ports*?
Easy - for example i have my own TCP acceleration solution, which is using
REDIRECT,
15 matches
Mail list logo
