Devin Butterfield wrote:
>
> On Monday 19 March 2001 4:36, Will Andrews wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > > I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
> > > suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
> > > g
On Monday 19 March 2001 4:36, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
> > suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
> > get insulted when I infer that he did s
[snip]
> >For sure the "de" driver might have its own problems,
> >but i think a lot of packet drops also depend on the card
> >not being properly set for full duplex (which can
> >cause collisions and lots of drops).
>
>
> You should initially test mono-directional in a controlled
> environme
At 02:04 AM 03/20/2001, Mårten Wikström wrote:
>[snip]
> > >triggers every second and steals too much cpu. So my
> > question is, how can I
> > >decrease this routing delay?
> > Were you loading the interface, or just passing nominal
> > streams? What pps
> > did you pass through the box? Most li
At 02:43 AM 03/20/2001, you wrote:
> > > I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are
> 21140's.
> > > I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
> > > Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
> >
> > definitely : in my packet b
> > I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are 21140's.
> > I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
> > Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
>
> definitely : in my packet blaster, I get an order of magnitude less
> pack
Mårten Wikström wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems quite old. They are 21140's.
> I've only got one 21143. I think there is a 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
> Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com than two 21140s?
definitely : in my packet blaster, I get an orde
[snip]
> >triggers every second and steals too much cpu. So my
> question is, how can I
> >decrease this routing delay?
> Were you loading the interface, or just passing nominal
> streams? What pps
> did you pass through the box? Most likely the "delays" are
> only seen when
> the machine is
Dennis wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> If you are using the dc driver, make certain it is operating in
> store-and-forward mode, the default configuration starts in a mode that
> only works on 10mb/s connections.
patches ?
>
> dennis
--
Thierry Herbelot
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Gilbert Gong wrote:
>
> Is this HZ option present in 4.2-STABLE?
yes, but I don't know why it does not appear in LINT.
This is what I've got in my home box kernel config file :
options HZ=1000
TfH
>
> >From sources update about a week ago:
> c106 - ggong@ggong:/usr/src/sys/i
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 06:11:55PM -0800, Devin Butterfield wrote:
> I'm not defending Dennis here, but this statement infers that nothing gets
> done unless maintainers are
>
> a) paid
>
> or
>
> b) someone else does the work for them.
>
> I certainly hope this is not the case.
No, it is n
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:46:53PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> I never got an answer (as usual) from bill paul when I made the
> suggestions, and noone seemed interested in getting it fixed. He seems to
> get insulted when I infer that he did something wrong.
It's like they say: "money talks". Simi
At 07:20 PM 03/19/2001, Will Andrews wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:14:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > Cool. Is the 21143 now started in store-and-forward mode and has the
> > mandatory watchdog timeout been fixed? Im getting tired of hacking it
> every
> > release.
>
>Submit a PR to fix the pr
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:14:54PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> Cool. Is the 21143 now started in store-and-forward mode and has the
> mandatory watchdog timeout been fixed? Im getting tired of hacking it every
> release.
Submit a PR to fix the problem?
--
wca
PGP signature
At 09:22 AM 03/19/2001, Mårten Wikström wrote:
>I've performed a routing test between a FreeBSD box and a Linux box. I
>measured the latency and the result was not what I had expected. Both
>systems had the peak at 100 us (microseconds), but whereas the Linux box had
>_no_ packet over 200 us, the
At 02:32 PM 03/19/2001, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
>Hello,
>
>the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack uses the "system tick timer" for some delay
>(maybe only for TCP).
>
>you may want to use a HZ=1000 option (see the LINT config file) in a
>recompiled kernel and see if things go better. (moreover, the dc(4)
>drive
>(moreover, the dc(4)
> driver which is used for your NIC has some interesting performance
> improvements in the forthcoming 4.3-Release)
like what ?
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hac
Hello,
the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack uses the "system tick timer" for some delay
(maybe only for TCP).
you may want to use a HZ=1000 option (see the LINT config file) in a
recompiled kernel and see if things go better. (moreover, the dc(4)
driver which is used for your NIC has some interesting perfor
I've performed a routing test between a FreeBSD box and a Linux box. I
measured the latency and the result was not what I had expected. Both
systems had the peak at 100 us (microseconds), but whereas the Linux box had
_no_ packet over 200 us, the FreeBSD box delayed some packets up to 2 ms!
Lookin
19 matches
Mail list logo
