Hello
Am 15.07.2008 um 22:59 schrieb JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉:
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:54:11 +0200,
Thomas Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since i updated my FreeBSD 6.3 dns server with the latest bind
version
in the ports (dns/bind94) my system is flooding my log with "too
many
open file descri
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Wasily Lin wrote:
> Hello,
> I set up a PPPoE server on FreeBSD 7.0(amd64) with mpd 5.1 and it works
> fine for all clients except for my FreeBSD 7.0(i386) Notebook.
> Connecting has no problem and I get ip but all website can not be access
> even on PPPoE server itself
Don't forget the souls who find themselves using jails. In this case it
is common to want a name server on the parent host but not on any of the
jail IPs.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ne
Sam Leffler wrote:
Larry Baird wrote:
And how do I know that it works ?
Well, when it doesn't work, I do know it, quite quickly most of the
time !
I have to chime in here. I did most of the initial porting of the
NAT-T patches from Kame IPSec to FAST_IPSEC. I did look at every
line of co
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Christensen wrote:
>
>> I'm working on adding MSI-X support for a new network driver
>> and having some difficulty in actually getting an interrupt.
>> Does this look right?
>
> I don't know, but o
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Christensen wrote:
I'm working on adding MSI-X support for a new network driver
and having some difficulty in actually getting an interrupt.
Does this look right?
I don't know, but on FreeBSD cluster machines running RELENG_8 bce
generates too many interrupts -- appr
Hello,
I set up a PPPoE server on FreeBSD 7.0(amd64) with mpd 5.1 and it works
fine for all clients except for my FreeBSD 7.0(i386) Notebook.
Connecting has no problem and I get ip but all website can not be access
even on PPPoE server itself(Apache installed), so can not ftp site.
I've used
On 2008-Jul-16 12:37:59 -0700, Barney Cordoba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >When I run "ping" between 2 identical FreeBSD hosts, with packets larger
>> >then 25152 bytes, "ping" fails.
...
>Isn't this sort of like going to your auto dealer and complaining that you get
>vibration at 240mph?
I don
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: "ping" with packets larger then 25152 bytes fails.
> To: "Eitan Shefi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 7:55 AM
> On 2008-Jul-16
I'm working on adding MSI-X support for a new network driver
and having some difficulty in actually getting an interrupt.
Does this look right?
/* Select and configure the IRQ. */
sc->bxe_msix_count = pci_msix_count(dev);
rid = 1;
/* Try allocating MSI-X interrupts
Eitan Shefi wrote:
> When I run "ping" between 2 identical FreeBSD hosts, with packets larger
> then 25152 bytes, "ping" fails.
>
> Does someone has an idea what might cause this failure ?[
My first guess is you're probably hitting the fragment limit for maximum
fragments per packet. Which is l
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:35:57 -0700,
Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> OK, will put on my todo list :)
>
Thanks. A kernel built that way (i.e. with igb and em) does actually
work, which is good, but if you're going to split them up we should
get this right before 7.1.
Best,
George
_
On 2008-Jul-16 10:41:57 +0300, Eitan Shefi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When I run "ping" between 2 identical FreeBSD hosts, with packets larger
>then 25152 bytes, "ping" fails.
Intriguing.
>Does someone has an idea what might cause this failure ?
No, but a few more datapoints:
- it only affects
When I run "ping" between 2 identical FreeBSD hosts, with packets larger
then 25152 bytes, "ping" fails.
Does someone has an idea what might cause this failure ?
Thanks,
Eitan
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:37:00 PDT JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps You're probably confused poll(2) with /dev/poll. The latter
> behaves as you described (but is not portable as poll(2)).
Indeed I am confused. Not sure where I got th
15 matches
Mail list logo