[no subject]
unsubscribe freebsd-net To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Best NIC at 4.6 ?
if you can still find some, I was very happy with the DLINK DFE-570-TX (4-port dc(4) NIC) TfH PS : the 3COM 3C905 NIC is also well supported under FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 12:37:57PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:29:37AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > ... > > > > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html > > > > > > > > UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that > > > > case around dec.2000 which i never ended up committing. > > > > > > I spent a half-hour trying to dig for that thread. Do you recall what > > > the subject of it was? When I saw this come up on DaemonNews, the > > > > it was "[patch] fast sbappend*, please try..." > > see > > > > >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=366972+0+archive/2001/freebsd-net/20010211.freebsd-net > > > > jlemon had an amended patch for that. > > I think we should revisit this keeping in mind the tcp case as well. > > I still have the amended patch in my tree, I'll dig it out this week. Luigi also mentionned at the end of the discussion that it would be worthwhile to - besides for just keeping a pointer to the last mbuf in the sockbuf - keep a pointer to the last mbuf in the packet. Maybe this pointer could be stashed in the m_pkthdr struct. > -- > Jonathan Regards, -- Bosko Milekic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:29:37AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: > ... > > > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: > > > > > > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html > > > > > > UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that > > > case around dec.2000 which i never ended up committing. > > > > I spent a half-hour trying to dig for that thread. Do you recall what > > the subject of it was? When I saw this come up on DaemonNews, the > > it was "[patch] fast sbappend*, please try..." > see > > >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=366972+0+archive/2001/freebsd-net/20010211.freebsd-net > > jlemon had an amended patch for that. > I think we should revisit this keeping in mind the tcp case as well. I still have the amended patch in my tree, I'll dig it out this week. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: ... > > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: > > > > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html > > > > UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that > > case around dec.2000 which i never ended up committing. > > I spent a half-hour trying to dig for that thread. Do you recall what > the subject of it was? When I saw this come up on DaemonNews, the it was "[patch] fast sbappend*, please try..." see http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=366972+0+archive/2001/freebsd-net/20010211.freebsd-net jlemon had an amended patch for that. I think we should revisit this keeping in mind the tcp case as well. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:16:36AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > ... > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: > > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html > > UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that > case around dec.2000 which i never ended up committing. I spent a half-hour trying to dig for that thread. Do you recall what the subject of it was? When I saw this come up on DaemonNews, the first thing that came to mind was seeing that discussion; but now I can't find it through the mailing list search thing on the website. :-( > cheers > luigi > > > Sounds interesting. > > > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack Cheers, -- Bosko Milekic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: ... > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that case around dec.2000 which i never ended up committing. cheers luigi > Sounds interesting. > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
the incredible shrinking socket
< said: > Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members > of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or > only used by data sockets. You can't do that. Self-connect is a valid operation on a socket. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: the incredible shrinking socket
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > * Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 21:48] wrote: > > > > > > I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket > > > away since it isn't needed. The savings are currently about 500 bytes, > > > and I can and also perform some other savings in the general case. > > > > > > I think Alfred was just trying to get his changes done first before I got > > > around to committing what I have. :-) :-) :-) (It's currently in p4) > > > > pfft, actually your return motivated me enough to try something I've > > been meaning to try. :) > > > > -- > > -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Yes, it's amazing what competition will do to productivity. I may > actually start getting things done again. :) > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html Sounds interesting. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: multi-link 802.11b through netgraph yields poor performance.
Sorry to cross post this, I want it in the archives. [discussion on using mulitilink acrsss wireless cards deleted] I have done similar, using two IP channels and with mpd as the "one2many" basically, assign real IP addresses to the 4 cards, on 2 separate 10.x.x.x/30 networks then open ksocket mpd nodes for each network, making 2 parallel 'pipes'. then run mpd using the "netgraph" link type, and set up Multilink. Multilink will round-robin forthe links, but it will also stop using a link htat appears to have failed so you have some redundancey: here are my configs for this: firstly the script that sets up the ksockets. (Assumes all modules needed are loaded) #!/bin/sh # $FreeBSD: src/share/examples/netgraph/udp.tunnel,v 1.1 2000/01/28 00:44:30 archie Exp $ # This script sets up a virtual point-to-point WAN link between # two subnets, using UDP packets as the ``WAN connection.'' # The two subnets might be non-routable addresses behind a # firewall. # # Here define the local and remote inside networks as well # as the local and remote outside IP addresses and UDP port # number that will be used for the tunnel. # LOC_EXTERIOR_IP1=10.42.3.3 REM_EXTERIOR_IP1=10.42.5.1 UDP_TUNNEL_PORT1=4028 LOC_EXTERIOR_IP2=10.42.1.3 REM_EXTERIOR_IP2=10.42.4.1 UDP_TUNNEL_PORT2=4029 ngctl shutdown tee1: ngctl shutdown tee2: sleep 1 ngctl -f - <
Best NIC at 4.6 ?
Hi I wondering what would be the best supported NIC by FreeBSD 4.6 , I am in the process to upgrade our mailhub and I would like to have "freebsd-net" gurus advice on the "best" network hardware Actually I use an Intel express PRO 10/100 and I experienced some "lost connection" with the Postfix MTA , I am not sure that is the eth board, but changing it for a "better one" is not expensive. Any info advice welcome. thanks a lot. -- Frank Bonnet To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Linksys USB100M ... usbd.conf help needed.
At Sun, 7 Jul 2002 11:52:01 +0100, Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 03:17:28PM -0700, Patrick Thomas wrote: > > > > I have just purchased a Linksys USB100M - it is a very small key-style USB > > NIC. I am running 5.0-DP1. I have all of the USB items except for the > > removable disk device compiled into my kernel - I also have the three > > aue/cue/kue options compiled into the kernel. I think it is based on the Realtek RTL8150L chip and it does not work with aue/cue/kue driver. I wrote the driver (url(4)) for RTL8150 chip on NetBSD, and it was ported into OpenBSD. But the FreeBSD is not supported yet. If someone helps to test, I will port the driver into FreeBSD. :-) --- Shingo WATANABE To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
