On Mon, 2005-Feb-07 17:05:39 -0600, Jon Noack wrote:
>José M. Fandiño wrote:
>>Jon Noack wrote:
>> Finally, I found the culprit:
>>
>>CFLAGS="" \ 100% of the transmited traffic is received
>>COPTFLAGS="" /
>>
>>CFLAGS= -pipe \ 50% of the transmited traffic is rece
José M. Fandiño wrote:
Jon Noack wrote:
Finally, I found the culprit:
CFLAGS="" \ 100% of the transmited traffic is received
COPTFLAGS="" /
CFLAGS= -pipe \ 50% of the transmited traffic is received
COPTFLAGS= -pipe /
>>> That would be exceedingly strange, because the above two opt
José M. Fandiño wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote:
"Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote:
Chris wrote:
Have tested on 3 boxes.
yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't
believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:30:43AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote:
> > > "Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Chris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Have tested on 3 boxes.
> > > >
> > > > yes, it's the int
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote:
> > "Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Have tested on 3 boxes.
> > >
> > > yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't
> > > believe it but it happens. I ever
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote:
> "Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote:
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > Have tested on 3 boxes.
> >
> > yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't
> > believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible.
>
> Fina
"José M. Fandiño" wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > Have tested on 3 boxes.
>
> yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't
> believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible.
Finally, I found the culprit:
CFLAGS="" \ 100% of the transmited traffic is receive
Chris wrote:
>
> Have tested on 3 boxes.
yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't
believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible.
The weirdest is that it worked in 5.3-RELEASE and some time later,
whilst I was tracking -stable, aplications began to fail lo
Have tested on 3 boxes.
5.3-STABLE compiled Jan 5th
--- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
61 packets transmitted, 61 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.062/0.073/0.146/0.013 ms
5.3-STABLE amd64 build compiled Jan 29th
--- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
60 packets tran
Hello,
It sounds weird but tcp/ip traffic directed to _local_ interfaces,
and only _local_ interfaces, always cause 50% of packets lost. Of
course there isn't packet filters activated.
I'm running -stable (the last update was this past weekend)
There is another report like this:
http://www.Fre
10 matches
Mail list logo