Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Six orders of magnitude?? Bandwidth and latency are not the same thing. Guy
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much higher than that of two lousy DIMMs. Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of disk. 128 MB of swap is _not_ very big... -- Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] a href=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~stevem/comp/My PC page/a Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, +-- Tongue-tied twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I... |Finger for PGP key
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:58:41AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much higher than that of two lousy DIMMs. Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of disk. 128 MB of swap is _not_ very big... Yeah, I agree. Isn't it possible to create multiple swap partitions though? Infact, this makes more sense, in some ways, because you are utilizing different devices, and, if you can swing it so that you put your main swap on a different disk than the one that gets the most use, you can speed things up... Correct? I think the size should be increased, though. -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of disk. 128 MB of swap is _not_ very big... I'm NOT thinking small. I'm thinking efficiency. You are talking 6 full orders of magnitude in terms of access time. If you have the money to pay for 25 GB of hard disk, I'm sure you have the money to afford a motherboard that can take over 1 GB of RAM. Even if 1 GB of RAM is way more expensive than 25 GB of HD, it's not 6 orders of magnitude more expensive. Marcelo
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:13:30PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of disk. 128 MB of swap is _not_ very big... I'm NOT thinking small. I'm thinking efficiency. You are talking 6 full orders of magnitude in terms of access time. If you have the money to pay for 25 GB of hard disk, I'm sure you have the money to afford a motherboard that can take over 1 GB of RAM. Even if 1 GB of RAM is way more expensive than 25 GB of HD, it's not 6 orders of magnitude more expensive. Six orders of magnitude?? In the unlikely event that my 100 MHz SDRAM can really handle 32 bits (4 bytes) per cycle, then it can transfer 400 megabytes per second. It's not REALLY that fast, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, a relatively lame IDE hard drive can sustain about 6 megs/sec. So if you swap to that drive, then our 400 megs/sec main memory is about 66 times faster (between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude, speaking in powers of 10). That's a bunch faster, but not as much as you claim. Plus, almost all the memory that ends up in swap doesn't get accessed very much. The more memory you have, the more true this becomes. I regularly take my 64-meg Linux system about 50 megs into swap (yay for StarOffice), and it still flies along nicely. This works because of two things: first, Linux's swapping code has been getting a LOT better (probably better than anyone else's) in the recent past; lately, instead of churning constantly, the drive sits idle a lot, even when I'm heavily into swap. Secondly, most programs only have a relatively small portion of memory that they access *A LOT*. The rest is low-bandwidth stuff that's kept in memory for simplicity more than anything. For example, netscape has a big cache of graphics and scripts, and StarOffice keeps lots of mostly-unused shared libraries and gigantic documents all in memory. That means that on tiny-memory systems (say, 8 megs or less) swapping will still thrash because even the often-used parts don't all fit in memory at once. As memory gets larger, though, swapping becomes less painful. Try it sometime. It actually isn't so bad. (And at about $0.04 CDN per megabyte on a hard drive versus $2.19 in real memory, swap space is an AWFUL LOT cheaper.) Now, the inefficient programmers that burped out StarOffice and Netscape in the first place are still pretty hard to explain. Have fun, Avery
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 10:27:15PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: Six orders of magnitude?? In the unlikely event that my 100 MHz SDRAM can really handle 32 bits (4 bytes) per cycle, then it can transfer 400 megabytes per second. It's not REALLY that fast, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Let me note I was replying in the context of huge swap files on huge hard disks. Tim's (and I think Ben also) example is the best one in this case: the seek time for a hard disk (~ ms) vs the access time for ram (~ ns) suddenly become important when you are talking about ~ GB of RAM. If you are talking about big databases where access is basically random, access time can become a serious bottleneck. But my original comment was posted because of someone's intention to put util-linux 2.9g on slink to get it in sync with 2.2 kernels ( 128 MB swap on a single partition) so this is rather off-topic. Marcelo
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote: But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work correctly with potato? No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a general incompatibility with 2.2 2.2 did something bizzar to how the packet filter code needs to work, nothing that used that mechanism will work anymore. Anyone made sure that libpcap works? I used tcpdump on 2.1.8x kernels iirc. It just needs the packet socket configure option in the kernel. And I just asked a friend to test it on a 2.2pre kernel, it still works. -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
In my more than honest opinion, I think util-linux 2.9g should be included in slink. Developments in the computer business are going fast, as everyone knows, and on the day slink will get released, I think a lot of people who are going to upgrade to slink, also want to have the newest kernel, 2.2. That's why slink should be compatible with Linux-2.2, otherwise it is quite a bit outdated at the moment of release. There is a major difference between not being compatible with the latest major kernel release, and not including the latest patchlevel of some software thingie. A stable release is always out of date. If you want leading edge, use unstable. We release stable so people have a known set that works together. It isn't an attempt to package the end-all and be-all of current Linux stuff. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- All is fair in love and war.
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
VR == Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: VR Including the current (2.9g-5) util-linux from unstable in VR frozen is a Bad Idea(tm). This version has several big VR packaging issues. On top of everything else, alpha support (and quite possibly other non-x86 architectures) in 2.9 is ever so slightly flaky. m.
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On 27 Jan 1999, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:
VR == Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VR Including the current (2.9g-5) util-linux from unstable in
VR frozen is a Bad Idea(tm). This version has several big
VR packaging issues.
On top of everything else, alpha support (and quite possibly other
non-x86 architectures) in 2.9 is ever so slightly flaky.
The 2.9 Debian package already contains the alpha patches supplied by
Christopher C Chimelis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see bug report
#17661).
I am not aware of any other patch or problem specific to the alpha
platform. Can you please elaborate?
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.orgLogiciels du soleil: -
- http://www.fr.debian.orgOpen Hardware: http://www.ldsol.com -
---
-Microsoft est à l'informatique ce que le grumeau est à la crépe... -
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
VR == Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: VR The 2.9 Debian package already contains the alpha patches VR supplied by Christopher C Chimelis VR [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see bug report #17661). I am VR not aware of any other patch or problem specific to the alpha VR platform. Can you please elaborate? The structure in partition.h that's specific to the alpha does not match the generic one - the difference that I first noticed (from memory) was the naming of the last two fields in struct partition. One solution is to mark the generic structure definition with __attribute__((packed)), as this shouldn't make any difference to any platform other than those that actually need it there. I was going to test this before suggesting it, but time constraints etc, etc, etc :) m.
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
The guys running the big machines are going to be a minority and should have no problem downloading util-linux. Even over a modem, its probably OK. It may be not worth it to risk the instability for the vast majority. The kernel source itself may be a problem for a slow or expensive modem link. I guess I don't care too much about the cachet of having 2.2 in slink. I wonder if we'll put 2.4 in slink -- John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 04:40:35PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote: But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work correctly with potato? No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a general incompatibility with 2.2 2.2 did something bizzar to how the packet filter code needs to work, nothing that used that mechanism will work anymore. Anyone made sure that libpcap works? libpcap works, insofar as tcpdump works. bootpc and older DHCP daemons broke not because the packet filter code changed (it did, but it's backwards compatible), but because 2.2 kernels act differently than 2.0 kernels with _normal_ TCP/IP sockets when interfaces have their IP address set to zero. Fun experiment on 2.0 kernels: [configure your ethernet or PPP link] ifconfig dummy0 0.0.0.0 up ping www.debian.org Won't work (dummy0 interferes with eth0 and ppp0, regardless of your routing table!), because 2.0 had a really weird hack for 0.0.0.0 addresses in order to make DHCP and bootp work. This hack has been removed, and the code is now more strict (if an address 0.0.0.0 is set on an interface, that interface has IPv4 entirely disabled). The fix is to change bootpc and DHCP daemons to use RAW sockets and generate their own IP headers, since they need oddball headers anyway. I believe the DHCP daemons have already been fixed. Have fun, Avery
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote: Also, Stephen Crowley noted that new dhcp-packages should be included in slink, because the ones that currently are in slink ain't compatible with Linux-2.2 either, but maybe he can explain that himself :) Another problem: bootpc from the netstd package does not work with 2.2. Btw the kernel has bootp support itself, but it can't be used with pnp network cards which need isapnp initialization. So my network setup which used bootp breaks with 2.2... Greg -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Gergely Madarasz wrote: Another problem: bootpc from the netstd package does not work with 2.2. Btw the kernel has bootp support itself, but it can't be used with pnp network cards which need isapnp initialization. So my network setup which used bootp breaks with 2.2... But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work correctly with potato? -Remco
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote: Gergely Madarasz wrote: Another problem: bootpc from the netstd package does not work with 2.2. Btw the kernel has bootp support itself, but it can't be used with pnp network cards which need isapnp initialization. So my network setup which used bootp breaks with 2.2... But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work correctly with potato? No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a general incompatibility with 2.2 -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:36:53PM +0100, Remco van de Meent wrote: I just tried to match the Changes file from Linux-2.2.0 with the slink distribution, and was happy to find out that almost every requirement mentioned in that file is fullfilled by the packages (versions) in slink. However, one dependancy isn't resolved: util-linux. Linux-2.2.0 wants util-linux 2.9g, but the one in slink is 2.7.1. Potato does have 2.9g. The main difference between them is the mkswap utility (support for swapfiles 128M). I'm forced to ask: what for? a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much higher than that of two lousy DIMMs. b) I've been running 2.1.x kernels for ages (ok, not that much, circa 80, give or take a couple of releases) at home, where I have a hamm box (with bits and pieces from slink and potato). The only thing that I know I had to upgrade because of the 2.1.x kernels was ppp. The other non-hamm stuff I have on that box is there because I need it, not because the kernel wants it. There's a hamm box right in front of me running 2.2.0 and as far as I can tell, it's quite happy with it. The box I'm sitting at follows slink, and it's also running 2.2.0 very happily. c) The argument something on the kernel wants it doesn't hold. For that matter, the kernel wants coda, and that's in project/experimental. What did you say? That coda is not essential? Neither is a huge swap file. Marcelo
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:03:14 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: c) The argument something on the kernel wants it doesn't hold. For that matter, the kernel wants coda, and that's in project/experimental. What did you say? That coda is not essential? Neither is a huge swap file. Or, to put it in a slightly different way. Just because the kernel can *USE* something does not mean that the kernel *NEEDS* it to run. Running a slink/potato system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/morpheus}ud -d - - Uptime for teleute - Now : 2 day(s), 08:19:33 running Linux 2.2.0-final One : 26 day(s), 21:36:39 running Linux 2.1.126, ended Fri Jan 22 00:31:03 1999 Two : 2 day(s), 08:18:53 running Linux 2.2.0-final, ended Tue Jan 26 13:18:15 1999 Three: 1 day(s), 01:26:40 running Linux 2.2.0-final, ended Sun Jan 24 04:32:36 1999 - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNq4yh3pf7K2LbpnFEQLD4wCg42X0VkUhIvQCuDJNuLybfcjhJfsAoKI3 v26i/mlRoErJ5GH1hBHDLzrA =ChIO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 03:03:14PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I'm forced to ask: what for? a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much higher than that of two lousy DIMMs. I have about 50 machines with all 4 DIMM slots filled with 128M sticks. I have *8* 128M swap partitions, and it's not enough since the (*[EMAIL PROTECTED] users run programs that average a 1.2G footprint. For me, it's just a management issue. Tim -- (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps Paranoia is a heightened state of awareness. -- Anon ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:21:56 -0500, Tim \(Pass the Prozac\) Sailer wrote: I have about 50 machines with all 4 DIMM slots filled with 128M sticks. I have *8* 128M swap partitions, and it's not enough since the (*[EMAIL PROTECTED] users run programs that average a 1.2G footprint. For me, it's just a management issue. So, can I have a shell account? I swear, you won't notice me and my 15-20mb of usage, honest! ;) - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNq40jXpf7K2LbpnFEQLV3wCgzga30ILohFMQjIouRoL2jt1pBMwAoLIS Mq4yjxtjXKvP2qofyYOEdxKF =NNHt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
In my more than honest opinion, I think util-linux 2.9g should be included
in slink. Developments in the computer business are going fast, as everyone
knows, and on the day slink will get released, I think a lot of people who
are going to upgrade to slink, also want to have the newest kernel, 2.2.
That's why slink should be compatible with Linux-2.2, otherwise it is quite
a bit outdated at the moment of release. There is a major difference between
not being compatible with the latest major kernel release, and not including
the latest patchlevel of some software thingie.
An option would be to backport the mkswap utility into util-linux 2.7.1.x,
but I'd rather prefer including 2.9g. Why? Because
linux/Documentation/Changes states that 2.9g is necessary. And that's the
file people will look in, when they want Linux-2.2. They're not going to
look at /usr/doc/util-linux/README.Debian. At least, that would be my guess.
Also, Stephen Crowley noted that new dhcp-packages should be included in
slink, because the ones that currently are in slink ain't compatible with
Linux-2.2 either, but maybe he can explain that himself :)
Brian et al., I hope you want to reconsider the point of including newer
versions of some packages in slink, even at this moment when the fridge is
working at maximum power...
Speaking as the maintainer of util-linux (I adopted it 2 weeks ago):
Including the current (2.9g-5) util-linux from unstable in frozen is a Bad
Idea(tm). This version has several big packaging issues. If you want a
util-linux 2.9 in frozen, please wait at least until tomorrow so I can
upload a version to fix the most obvious bugs (notably the few missing
manpages).
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.orgLogiciels du soleil: -
- http://www.fr.debian.orgOpen Hardware: http://www.ldsol.com -
---
-Microsoft est à l'informatique ce que le grumeau est à la crépe... -
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I'm forced to ask: what for? I'm forced to agree. Support for swap partitions 128 mb is a new feature; a mkswap that doesn't support it isn't a major incompatability. Few people will need the feature anyway, and if they do need it the simple workaround is to use multiple 128 mb partitions. -- see shy jo
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:36:53PM +0100, Remco van de Meent wrote: I just tried to match the Changes file from Linux-2.2.0 with the slink distribution, and was happy to find out that almost every requirement mentioned in that file is fullfilled by the packages (versions) in slink. However, one dependancy isn't resolved: util-linux. Linux-2.2.0 wants util-linux 2.9g, but the one in slink is 2.7.1. Potato does have 2.9g. The main difference between them is the mkswap utility (support for swapfiles 128M). Changes says that net-tools 1.49 is required. It says to use 'hostname -V' to determine the version, but this does not work. 'route -V' in both slink and potato indicate that the net-tools version is 1.45. Is an upgrade needed here? I haven't noticed any problems with this, but I'm not familiar with the specific differences between 1.45 and 1.49. Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:13:04 -0700 (MST) From: Bob Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: new kernel release I see that Documentation/CHANGES says that net-tools 1.49 is required. It says to use 'hostname -V' to determine the version, but this does not work. 'route -V' in both slink and potato that the net-tools version is 1.45. Is an upgrade needed here? Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:33:01PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:21:56 -0500, Tim \(Pass the Prozac\) Sailer wrote: I have about 50 machines with all 4 DIMM slots filled with 128M sticks. I have *8* 128M swap partitions, and it's not enough since the (*[EMAIL PROTECTED] users run programs that average a 1.2G footprint. For me, it's just a management issue. So, can I have a shell account? I swear, you won't notice me and my 15-20mb of usage, honest! ;) :) If you can get an account at bnl.gov, I'll gladly give you an account on there. Maybe you'd like an account on the quad xenon machines we're playing with? They have *only* 1.5GB RAM, but they are evaluation units. :) Tim -- (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps Paranoia is a heightened state of awareness. -- Anon ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Joey Hess wrote: I'm forced to agree. Support for swap partitions 128 mb is a new feature; a mkswap that doesn't support it isn't a major incompatability. Few people will need the feature anyway, and if they do need it the simple workaround is to use multiple 128 mb partitions. Okay, reading the emails people sent me, I think I didn't make clear what I meant. It is not that I claim you need this and that to compile and/or run a 2.2 kernel. I say the requirements speak of this and that to compile and/or run a 2.2 kernel. Are those requirements not entirely correct? Probably, most likely they are not minimal requirements. But, hey, the kernel documentation, the place where I personally would look when I want to run that kernel, states I need such versions of software. Now you can make choices between two things, being a Debian supporter: 1) Debian should listen to those requirements, and get their upcoming release compatible in the sense that when I, as a user, try to figure out if my newly installed Debian slink system supports 2.2 kernels, looking at the documentation; or 2) wait for the users to come and ask if Debian 2.1 (slink) is compatible. And not once. Not twice. I'd go for at least one hundred times. And yes, then it will be put in some faq that 'some' users don't read. Thus, I'm not talking about putting new features in the frozen distribution, I'm talking of makeing it both the users out there, and the people helping those users, easier when slink gets released and questions about Linux-2.2 come up.. Maybe I'm totally wrong with my expectations on what people will do when they want Linux-2.2 on their slink system, who knows. Do you? Thanks for everyones time, -Remco
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. Not if you have 2G ram. -- Raul
Re: Getting Slink compatible with Linux-2.2.0
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote: But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work correctly with potato? No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a general incompatibility with 2.2 2.2 did something bizzar to how the packet filter code needs to work, nothing that used that mechanism will work anymore. Anyone made sure that libpcap works? Jason
