thanks for your feedback jack - i tried the MSI stuff as first task this
morning
the interface init'ed without a problem and did not complain about MSI
what i like most is that no IRQ is assigned now, everything seems to get
handled in a TASKQ (IRQs were quite weird sometimes when having a bunch
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Chuck, Julian, good day.
Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
% tcpdump -nS -r IE7.pcap
reading from file IE7.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
18:24:41.313890 IP 172.28.15.82.3128 10.251.22.29.1121: . ack 1573162290 win
32120
18:24:41.313995 IP
Andre, good day.
Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 08:57:47AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Seems like it is the effect of the SS_NOFDREF check in the
netinet/tcp_input.c, at least it is present in the rev. 1.281.2.5.
See the post
Mike Karels wrote:
A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to think more
about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0
In
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
I missed Robert Watson's start of thread,
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
I missed Robert Watson's start of thread, so I'm jumping in here
with a question.
Dear all:
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Chuck, Julian, good day.
Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
% tcpdump -nS -r IE7.pcap
reading from file IE7.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
18:24:41.313890 IP 172.28.15.82.3128 10.251.22.29.1121: . ack 1573162290 win
32120
18:24:41.313995
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
I missed Robert Watson's start of thread, so I'm
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:48:21 +0100 (BST) Robert Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Scott Bennett wrote:
[Cc: list trimmed a bit more --SB]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200 Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July
Stephen Clark wrote:
Mike Karels wrote:
A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to
think more about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp;
There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to
a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames
should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This
could cause confusion when people plug jumbo capable devices in with
hardware
Hello,
I've got a FreeBSD 6.2 machine now behind a squid nontransparent
authenticating proxy. The proxy use to be transparent and didn't require
authentication, those requirements now changed, so it now utilizes a
dedicated ip and basic authentication. This is fine for the machine it's on,
0n Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:01:11PM -0400, Dave wrote:
I've got a FreeBSD 6.2 machine now behind a squid nontransparent
authenticating proxy. The proxy use to be transparent and didn't require
authentication, those requirements now changed, so it now utilizes a
dedicated ip
Mike Karels wrote:
There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to
a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames
should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This
could cause confusion when people plug jumbo capable devices in
14 matches
Mail list logo
