On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:05:21PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Colm MacCárthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:06PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:05:21PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
Colm, can you try running the apr/test/sendfile binary with your
machines?
It was one of the first things I tried when I was debugging,
unfortunately, it doesnt
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:16:02AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:06PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:05:21PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
Colm, can you try running the apr/test/sendfile binary with your
machines?
It was one of the first
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:54:53AM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
..
telnet [v6addr] 80
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: madeup.tld
observe lack of response
Have you verified with tcpdump/ethereal etc that this hang is because
the server is not sending the packets? What does netstat -t show for
this
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:30:29AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:54:53AM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
..
telnet [v6addr] 80
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: madeup.tld
observe lack of response
Have you verified with tcpdump/ethereal etc that this hang is because
the
To summarize some off-list dicussion - the kernel guys have said that
using sendfile on IPv6 sockets may trigger bugs in cards which do
hardware TCP checksumming for card/driver/OS combinations which support
that. (since the cards have to know about IPv6, and that probably
doesn't get tested
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:17:53PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
To summarize some off-list dicussion - the kernel guys have said that
using sendfile on IPv6 sockets may trigger bugs in cards which do
hardware TCP checksumming for card/driver/OS combinations which support
that. (since the cards have
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util from CVS ,
with the 2.0.43 codebase, because CVS seems broken right now.
stupid pre-test patch, here's the real one:
Index: configure.in
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Colm MacCárthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util from CVS ,
with the 2.0.43 codebase, because CVS seems broken
Colm MacCárthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
as David Reid reminded, the flag needs to default to 0 on the right
Linux boxen... unless/until we get specific info, I plan to tweak
your patch to default it to --disable when building on Linux 2.4.x...
relatively few users who would encounter
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Colm MacCárthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util from CVS ,
with the 2.0.43 codebase, because CVS seems broken
11 matches
Mail list logo
