match rules and priorities

Hi! I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want to have top priority on them instead of the others. So I have these rules: match proto tcp to port { ftp, http, https, 3129 } set prio 7 match proto tcp

verification spamd and traffic

Hi there, I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a quite radical adding to my blacklist :) and I noticed my outgoing traffic jumped from around 500mb per day to 3,2gb per day. I checked the traffic

Re: match rules and priorities

On 8 October 2015 at 11:36, Christer Solskogen wrote: > Hi! > > I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I > have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want > to have top priority on them instead of the others. > > So

Re: "dd if=/dev/srandom of=/dev/wd0e bs=1024 count=1" WIPES my wd0 disklabel. Is this intended, bug, how come, how workaround ??? Incl reproduction script+console output+dmesg

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:50:59AM +0800, Mikael wrote: : > *Impression:* > Based on what Benny and I think someone else said, I got an approximative > impression something like that the whole disklabelling system is actually > designed with the intention that every disklabel is required to > >

Re: unbreak trunk(4)

Am 10/07/15 um 21:14 schrieb Daniel Jakots: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:59:21 +0200, Stefan Wollny > wrote: > >> Am 10/07/15 um 15:47 schrieb Mike Belopuhov: >>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 15:41 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: Hi, If you have noticed recent problems

Re: softraid(4)/bioctl(8) vs. non-512-byte sectors disks

kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET): > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment. > Ken Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'. I saw plus58.html: * Use DEV_BSIZE instead of 512 where appropriate in the kernel. This

Re: softraid(4)/bioctl(8) vs. non-512-byte sectors disks

mcmer-open...@tor.at (Marcus MERIGHI), 2015.10.08 (Thu) 12:26 (CEST): > kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET): > > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment. > > Ken > > Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'. After

Re: match rules and priorities

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ville Valkonen wrote: > > you can only queue outgoing traffic. Once you think about it, that makes > sense. > I boiled the rule down to this: match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7 But I still can't see that it does anything

Re: softraid(4)/bioctl(8) vs. non-512-byte sectors disks

On 10/08, Marcus MERIGHI wrote: > kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET): > > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment. > > Ken > > Any news on this one? No answer as always means 'no'. > > I saw plus58.html: > * Use DEV_BSIZE

Re: match rules and priorities

Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2015, 15:26 +0200 schrieb Christer Solskogen: > I boiled the rule down to this: > match proto tcp to port { http https } set prio 7 > > But I still can't see that it does anything useful, as I don't see any > better speed on http with or without that rule. > What have I

Re: softraid(4)/bioctl(8) vs. non-512-byte sectors disks

On 8 October 2015 at 07:13, Marcus MERIGHI wrote: > mcmer-open...@tor.at (Marcus MERIGHI), 2015.10.08 (Thu) 12:26 (CEST): >> kwesterb...@gmail.com (Kenneth Westerback), 2014.03.19 (Wed) 17:09 (CET): >> > Alas, softraid only supports 512 byte block devices at the moment. >> >

Re: match rules and priorities

Em 08-10-2015 05:36, Christer Solskogen escreveu: > I'm having a bit trouble understanding match rules and priorities. I > have a lot of traffic on other ports than http and https, but I want > to have top priority on them instead of the others. > > So I have these rules: > match proto tcp to port

Re: CD's arrived

I am in NJ. Have not received anything yet. RT Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.   Original Message   From: Raf Czlonka Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:38 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: CD's arrived On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:51:28PM BST, M

Re: requesting help working around boot failures with supermicro atom board

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:17:25PM -0400, Dewey Hylton wrote: > you missed my update which followed that post. it did not survive the night > - even with lm disabled in the kernel, some number of reboots later i > encountered the same failure. that update is on the list, but i'll include > the

Re: CD's arrived

Hello Syracuse, NY -- no CD, but poster has arrived. looks great! http://ce.gl/openbsd-5.8-poster.jpg ian On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM, M Wheeler <6f84c...@refn.co.uk> wrote: > CD's arrived today UK. Thanks again.

Re: Captive portal with OpenBSD as a hostap

On 08/10/15 23:17, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but the way that Authpf works (I have configured it in the past) is to load a new set of PF rules after successful ssh login. My understanding is that by default the traffic remains unencrypted unless we use more

Re: requesting help working around boot failures with supermicro atom board

ah, well thanks for taking a look. On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:17:25PM -0400, Dewey Hylton wrote: > > you missed my update which followed that post. it did not survive the > night > > - even with lm disabled in the

Re: Captive portal with OpenBSD as a hostap

Kapetanakia Giannis wrote: > > On 05/10/15 14:35, David Coppa wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, C.L. Martinez > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have installed an openbsd vm to works as a hostap for tablets and > >> smartphones (android and iOS). > >> > >> All

Re: CD's arrived

On 10/08/15 16:13, ian kremlin wrote: Hello Syracuse, NY -- no CD, but poster has arrived. looks great! http://ce.gl/openbsd-5.8-poster.jpg ian On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM, M Wheeler <6f84c...@refn.co.uk> wrote: CD's arrived today UK. Thanks again. Bonus points for effective use of

kernel panic

hi what kind of information you need more ? holger Stopped at 0:ehci0: unrecoverable error, controller halted panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "ci->ci_fpcurproc == p" failed: file "../../../../arch/i386/isa/npx.c", line 881 Stopped at Debugger+0x7: leave TIDPID

Re: match rules and priorities

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ville Valkonen wrote: >> >> you can only queue outgoing traffic. Once you think about it, that makes >> sense. >> > > I boiled the rule down to this: >

Re: kernel panic

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:22:53AM +0200, Holger Glaess wrote: > hi > > what kind of information you need more ? > uhm. this machine is very very strange. It has devices I've never seen before and many other devices not even recognized. Without access to the hardware there's not much we can do