Le 01/10/15 11:58, Lauri Tirkkonen a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 01 2015 11:50:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
In that case, wouldn't setting tcp_tstamp_always on OI to '1' be better in
this case (or would OI not honour that setting correctly)?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't work. From what I can tell,
Le 01/10/15 14:23, Lauri Tirkkonen a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 01 2015 13:49:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
>> Le 01/10/15 11:58, Lauri Tirkkonen a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Oct 01 2015 11:50:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
>> In that case, wouldn't setting tcp_tstamp_always on OI to '1' be better
>>
On Thu, Oct 01 2015 13:49:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
> Le 01/10/15 11:58, Lauri Tirkkonen a écrit :
> > On Thu, Oct 01 2015 11:50:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
> In that case, wouldn't setting tcp_tstamp_always on OI to '1' be better
> in
> this case (or would OI not honour that
On Thu, Oct 01 2015 14:29:32 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
> >> Actually I still notice some problems.. This morning in the direction OI
> >> => omnios
> >> things seemed okay.
> >> Now, omnios => OI I just now experienced the hang again, and it is
> >> repeatable.
> >>
> >> Could it be that your
Hello,
has anybody managed to get Intel HD 3000 in Sandy Bridge
work using X from SmartOS packages? Dmesg shows the chip
and X -configure sets "intel", but only after replacing
it with "vesa" works. Otherwise I get "No screens found".
I found https://www.illumos.org/issues/4044 but
what does
Le 01/10/15 21:00, Pekka Niiranen a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> has anybody managed to get Intel HD 3000 in Sandy Bridge
> work using X from SmartOS packages? Dmesg shows the chip
> and X -configure sets "intel", but only after replacing
> it with "vesa" works. Otherwise I get "No screens found".
>
> I
Le 30/09/15 10:02, Lauri Tirkkonen a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 30 2015 09:56:47 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
To be clear, it's not implementing RFC 1323 (and not even *not*
implementing 7323) that causes the issue. 1323 actually didn't specify
what to do with non-timestamped segments on a
On Thu, Oct 01 2015 11:50:03 +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
> >>In that case, wouldn't setting tcp_tstamp_always on OI to '1' be better in
> >>this case (or would OI not honour that setting correctly)?
> >
> >It wouldn't work. From what I can tell, those ndd settings only affect
> >the SYN segments
