On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:31 -0700,
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
George V. Neville-Neil wrote this message on Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 15:29 -0400:
It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
before 1994 and it's very likely time to t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:31 -0700,
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
George V. Neville-Neil wrote this message on Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 15:29 -0400:
It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
t
At Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:31 -0700,
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> George V. Neville-Neil wrote this message on Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 15:29 -0400:
> > It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
> > before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
> > tunable. On
George V. Neville-Neil wrote this message on Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 15:29 -0400:
> It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
> before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
> tunable. On hosts that have a high rate of packet transmission
> packets can be dro
At Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:50:32 +0100,
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with the intent of the change that IPv4 and IPv6 input queues
> should have a tunable queue length. However, the change provided is
> going to make the definition of IFQ_MAXLEN global and dependent upon a
> variabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I found no occurrences of the above in our code base. I used cscope
to search all of src/sys. Are you aware of any occurrences of this?
I have been using IFQ_MAXLEN to size buffer queues internal to some
IGMPv3 stuff.
I don't feel comfortable with a change w
Hi,
I agree with the intent of the change that IPv4 and IPv6 input queues
should have a tunable queue length. However, the change provided is
going to make the definition of IFQ_MAXLEN global and dependent upon a
variable.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
It turns out that the last time anyone
At Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:17:18 +0400,
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 03:29:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
> > before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
> > tunable. On hosts
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 03:29:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
> before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
> tunable. On hosts that have a high rate of packet transmission
> packets can be dropped at
Hi,
It turns out that the last time anyone looked at this constant was
before 1994 and it's very likely time to turn it into a kernel
tunable. On hosts that have a high rate of packet transmission
packets can be dropped at the interface queue because this value is
too small. Rather than make a s
10 matches
Mail list logo
