Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-15 Thread Henning Brauer
* Joe Warren-Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-14 17:53]: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:38:21PM +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote: > > Hey there, > > > According several messages I've read from Henning or Daniel in present > > and @pf list, there are not any benefits in run PF with MP kernels (

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread scott
ntend with each other. Are they, (i) a one dual-ports NIC, or (ii) two single-port NICs, or (iii) a chip embedded on the mb? -Original Message- From: Mikael Kermorgant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 4.2 and em(4) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:46:08 +0200 Hello, I'd like to jump

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Mikael Kermorgant
this > one. > > C) We found, on 4.2, if your mb will play nicely, expressly enabling > ACPI (vs. default APM) functionality seemed to improve the the boxes > throughput too. In our case, INTEL MOTHERBOARDS. Your mb may not like > this, though, so use with care and/or wait to 4.

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread scott
OTECTED]> To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: 4.2 and em(4) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:23:24 + (UTC) Mailer: slrn/0.9.8.1 (OpenBSD) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2008-04-14, Joe Warren-Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be c

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2008-04-14, Joe Warren-Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be correct. If you > were to put a bunch of ftp-proxys on there too, then MP would help, no? very little, the bulk data handling is done in kernel by nat/rdr rules added to the anchor

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Jordi Espasa Clofent
If the box was only doing pf stuff, then that would be correct. If you were to put a bunch of ftp-proxys on there too, then MP would help, no? I understand the same as you: in that specific case the MP could be useful. -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Joe Warren-Meeks
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:38:21PM +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote: Hey there, > According several messages I've read from Henning or Daniel in present > and @pf list, there are not any benefits in run PF with MP kernels (and > multi-processor boxes, of course). Even you can get a poor perfo

Re: 4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Jordi Espasa Clofent
Hey guys, I have a pair of firewalls running fully patched OpenBSD 4.2. These are DL140s and i have the optional quad gigabit ethernet card in them. Now, whenever I use the GENERIC kernel, all is well. However, if I switch to the GENERIC.MP kernel I lose connectivity and get em0: watchdog timeou

4.2 and em(4)

2008-04-14 Thread Joe Warren-Meeks
Hey guys, I have a pair of firewalls running fully patched OpenBSD 4.2. These are DL140s and i have the optional quad gigabit ethernet card in them. Now, whenever I use the GENERIC kernel, all is well. However, if I switch to the GENERIC.MP kernel I lose connectivity and get em0: watchdog timeout