50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-01-31 Thread José M. Fandiño
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-01 Thread Chris
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-01 Thread José M. Fandiño
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread José M. Fandiño
"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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread José M. Fandiño
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread Jon Noack
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.

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-07 Thread Jon Noack
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

Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces

2005-02-08 Thread Peter Jeremy
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