Hello
I'm intrested in implementing sendmail with AUTH agains passwd, I have
only been able to do this agains TSL with their database, has anyone
tried agains passwd and got it to work?
/John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-net in the body of the
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:03:58PM -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
...
65123 556880155 55168583654 allow ip from any to any
This shows 55 gigabytes of total transfer for this rule - and i know we
have transferred about 3 terabytes during that period ...
i am not aware of counter problems. Your
Hello,
I used to have a firewall with ipfw count rules in place for every IP I
had. This worked fine, but it gave me a 2000+ ruleset that would cause
cpu to skyrocket under even the lightest of DoS attacks.
So, I have plugged in another system on the DMZ and plan to count from
there.
In the
Any ideas if netgraph code is accounted for the swiN: net kernel process
or to the interrupt virtual process?
Also ideas what is the usual bottleneck in SMP Xeon system are appreciated,
600Mbps internet traffic seems to generate about 60% (on one of the CPUs) .
This is on -CURRENT.
The number
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Robbins wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the attic while
you are at it.
Hello,
I'm trying to setup amd on a host which has only localhost and a
dialup network connection.
When amd is started it causes a network connection on the tun0
interface. It seems to connect to ports 1023 and 1022.
Several network servers can be configured to which address they
should bind but
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:09:13PM -0800, Bill Paul wrote:
Hello,
Yes, it's me. I'm still alive.
It's great to hear that one of the most talented FreeBSD hackers is back
in business :)
Does this means that you can afford some time to investigate the problems
regarding your old
Hi,
For anyone who's using MPD with multilink PPP enabled and is experiencing
mysterious hangs where no data gets through for an extended period of
time, please try the patch below.
Thanks to Matthew Impett [EMAIL PROTECTED] for finding the bug.
-Archie
looks good here..
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Hi,
For anyone who's using MPD with multilink PPP enabled and is experiencing
mysterious hangs where no data gets through for an extended period of
time, please try the patch below.
Thanks to Matthew Impett [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
I used to have a firewall with ipfw count rules in place for every IP I
had. This worked fine, but it gave me a 2000+ ruleset that would cause
cpu to skyrocket under even the lightest of DoS attacks.
So, I have plugged in another system on the DMZ and plan to count from
there.
In the
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
I'm trying to deploy a transparent proxy server for a friend's office but have
run into a couple of snags that I can't seam to find the correct answer for.
a) Draw a diagram,
b) Check IPFW rules (tcpdump is your friend),
c) Check out transproxy...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, CHOI Junho wrote:
Final: What is a good math for calculating these values safely?
kern.ipc.nmbclusters
kern.ipc.nsfbufs
FWIW, The math you want should be in tuning(7).
-m
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-net in the body of the
Any comments on the high cpu consumption of mb_free? Or any other places
where I should look to improve performance?
What do you mean high cpu consumption? The common case of mb_free()
is this:
According to profiling mb_free takes 18.9% of all time consumed in kernel and is
almost
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:12:55AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Any comments on the high cpu consumption of mb_free? Or any other places
where I should look to improve performance?
What do you mean high cpu consumption? The common case of mb_free()
is this:
According to
Mike Barcroft wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Robbins wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Barcroft wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Robbins wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
In file included from ../../../netns/idp_usrreq.c:51:
../../../netns/ns_pcb.h:82:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Wemm writes:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
Could we possibly move Terry to the
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vincent Jardin writes:
Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mista
ke
as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
I thought nwfs used it?
nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-net in the body of the message
What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
enough to not run into any IPX.
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 18:26, Tim Robbins wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
I thought nwfs used
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
Tell
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts down on the metadiscussions and
increases the quality of the codebase.
mcl
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
* De: Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts
I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
enough to not run into any IPX.
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at
Julian Elischer wrote:
I thought nwfs used it?
Nope. But actually looking at the code would have told you that.
Remember, we're talking about the Xerox networking suite here. It's not
like its a widely deployed protocol or something important.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
Is
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for doing this, other than I
want to make some API/locking change, but I don't want to
have to keep this code working at the same time? Maximizing
Is there a compelling reason
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:34:11PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
I did some profiling on -CURRENT from a few days back, and I think I haven´t
figured the new tunables out or the code is not doing what it´s supposed to
or I´m asking more than it is supposed to do but it seems that mb_free
is
Yes, it's normal. The commit log clearly states that the new
watermarks do nothing for now. I have a patch that changes that but I
haven't committed it yet because I left for vacation last Sunday and I
only returned early this Monday. Since then, I've been too busy to
clean up
30 matches
Mail list logo
