On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:10:51PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 17:20 -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
>
> > I also like Andi's idea of using change_page_attr() to isolate the
> > problem. I'll try to send you a debug patch in the next few days to try
> > that out. Thanks.
>
> H
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:18:24PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > Apr 11 22:14:02 ' eth0:220898233988841368 66750274000 0
> > > 0 86458738 52386430545 101089219 19931300 0 199313
> > > 0 '
>
> > > Apr 11 22:15:02 ' eth0:17227454818 81381144
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:13:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:43:19 +1000 CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I take minute by minute snapshots of network traffic by sampling
> > /proc/net/dev and most of the time everything works fine. Occas
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:13:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:43:19 +1000 CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I take minute by minute snapshots of network traffic by sampling
> > /proc/net/dev and most of the time everything works fine. Occas
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:54:01AM -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> >> running since 8:42pm yesterday. It's 8:37am now. It hasn't progressed
> >> in any way. It hasn't quit. It hasn't timed out. It just sits there,
> >> hung. This leads me to consider the possibility of a DOS, either
> >> in
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:50:39AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> Another datapoint to this is that I've had this my netcat web test
> running since 8:42pm yesterday. It's 8:37am now. It hasn't progressed
> in any way. It hasn't quit. It hasn't timed out. It just sits there,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:50:00AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >Basically the mostlikely end-result is I don't know what there is a
> >problem and my customer doesn't know that there is a problem but they're
> >just not getting as many hits to their site that they otherwise would.
> >
> >Ofcourse
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:47:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> You can save yourself that hassle by informing the site admin
> of the affected site that they have a firewall that misinterprets
> the RFC standard window scaling field of the TCP headers. These
> devices assume it is zero because th
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:46:27PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:59:15 +1000
>
> > Now I found a thread about tcp window scaling affecting the loading of
> > some sites but I fail to load the above site
I had recently upgraded to 2.6.17.1 and tried to go to
http://submit.spam.acma.gov.au/acma_submit.cgi?lang=EN
to report an australian spammer. Unfortunately the loading of the
webpage cuts out at 5472 bytes. I can repeat this each and every time
under 2.6.17.1 with
( echo 'get /acma_submit.cgi?l
10 matches
Mail list logo
