Hello List,
I know 4.9 is ancient history, but unfortunately we have several
thousand sites installed. We are in the process of moving to 6.1 when it
is released.
Right now I have an immediate problem where we are going to install two
system at a
HQ site. Each of the 2 systems will have two
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 16:50, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I know 4.9 is ancient history, but unfortunately we have several
> thousand sites installed. We are in the process of moving to 6.1 when it
> is released.
>
> Right now I have an immediate problem where we are going to install t
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
I've looked at the gre code til I am blue in the face and can't see
where mbufs were not being freed when the quelen is full.
If anybody could give some direction as where to look or how to better
trouble shoot this problem it would be greatly appreciated.
Stephen Clark wrote:
> Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've looked at the gre code til I am blue in the face and can't see
>>> where mbufs were not being freed when the quelen is full.
>>>
>>> If anybody could give some direction as where to look or how to
>>> better trouble shoot this
On Tue, 2006-Apr-18 18:56:52 +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>4.9 and 4.11 are on the same branch, thus of course, userland programs
>don't require recompilation.
"shouldn't" not "don't". This would still require regression testing
to confirm that nothing breaks. Given that Steve has stated that he
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I know 4.9 is ancient history, but unfortunately we have several
thousand sites installed. We are in the process of moving to 6.1 when it
is released.
Right now I have an immediate problem where we are going to install two
system at a
HQ site. Each of the 2
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
I have discovered that if I disable quaqqa/ospfd then I don't lose mbufs!
This makes it appear that the mbuf leak is in the multicast routing logic.
In fact I lose mbufs even with the both system basically idle but with a 100
vpn/gre with multicast goi
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
I have discovered that if I disable quaqqa/ospfd then I don't lose mbufs!
This makes it appear that the mbuf leak is in the multicast routing logic.
In fact I lose mbufs even with the both system basically idle but with a 100
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
I have discovered that if I disable quaqqa/ospfd then I don't lose mbufs!
This makes it appear that the mbuf leak is in the multicast routing logic.
In fact I lose mbufs even with the both system basically idle but with a 100
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
Sorry not to have caught this thread earlier; I've been on travel for the
last few weeks. My general suggestion would be to try to narrow the code
paths traversed to try to eliminate as much code as possible from the
search. It sounds like you've do
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
Sorry not to have caught this thread earlier; I've been on travel for the
last few weeks. My general suggestion would be to try to narrow the code
paths traversed to try to eliminate as much code as possible from the
search.
11 matches
Mail list logo
