> On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
>
> Seems like I am confusing you
>
> I do realize that it is in BITS!
>
> 4M == 4000KBIT == 500kbytes.
>
> Using 4000K OR 4M SHOULD restrict flow to a MAXIMUM of 500 KBYTES. What I am
> seeing is that using a value restricts flow to a maxim
Seems like I am confusing you
I do realize that it is in BITS!
4M == 4000KBIT == 500kbytes.
Using 4000K OR 4M SHOULD restrict flow to a MAXIMUM of 500 KBYTES. What I
am seeing is that using a value restricts flow to a maximum of 100KBYTES!
root@storage1:/root# flowadm add-flow -l backup0 -a t
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
>
> This does not work. Simple example. Ran wget on an ubuntu ISO. Was
> downloading at over 1 mega byte per sec. Set adapter to 4000K. I would
> expect the download to peak at around 500 Kilo Bytes. Was in the 100 range.
> 16000K put i
Running it right now with 15M and it seems to have capped it at 400 kilo
bytes/sec. Whatever is being used to calculate is not correct at least on
the driver for this NIC - VMXNET3S.
Another thing. I realize that you said that you can limit this to ports.
But what if you are downloading and uplo
We were using flowadm on a source ip basis. Not easy to keep track of the ip
in a big product environment and also want to throttle in or out and the
bidirectional was not clean way of doing it
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Mini Tr
This does not work. Simple example. Ran wget on an ubuntu ISO. Was
downloading at over 1 mega byte per sec. Set adapter to 4000K. I would
expect the download to peak at around 500 Kilo Bytes. Was in the 100
range. 16000K put it in the 500kb range. Doesn't add up. Also didn't
persist across
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
>
> Is it possible to limit flow control on uploads? flowadm - the numbers don't
> seem to add up. I'm not sure what its doing.
>From the manual:
maxbw
Sets the full duplex bandwidth for the flow. The bandwidth is
Is it possible to limit flow control on uploads? flowadm - the numbers
don't seem to add up. I'm not sure what its doing.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Mini Trader
> wrote:
> >
> > The values set in flowadm seem odd. They don't align
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
>
> The values set in flowadm seem odd. They don't align with download speed.
> Also it is up and down not up or down.
>
> wondershaper does not work.
It won't because it expects kernel interfaces LX zones don't provide.
You will have to us
The values set in flowadm seem odd. They don't align with download speed.
Also it is up and down not up or down.
wondershaper does not work.
root@debian-8:~# wondershaper backup0 4000 4000
RTNETLINK answers: Unknown error -122
RTNETLINK answers: Unknown error -122
RTNETLINK answers: Unknown erro
11 января 2017 г. 21:08:15 CET, Dan McDonald пишет:
>
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Linda Kateley
>wrote:
>>
>> If I remember right, zone create automatically create a mount using
>lofi.. I used to add additional ones.
>
>Not true except for LX zones (which lofs mount things into /native) and
12 января 2017 г. 0:13:39 CET, Mini Trader пишет:
>Is it possible for me to add inputs into the interface config for my
>adapters.
>
>I use a utility to restrict uplink speed called wondershaper.
>
>Normally my /etc/network/interfaces has something like:
>
>up /sbin/wondershaper eth0 X Y
>
>Would
No, it doesn't work that way. The LX brand compatibility layer makes hardware
primitives such as interfaces *look* like what a linux program would expect,
but not necessarily act like one, and that extends to configuring it as well.
/dale
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 6:13 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
>
>
Is it possible for me to add inputs into the interface config for my
adapters.
I use a utility to restrict uplink speed called wondershaper.
Normally my /etc/network/interfaces has something like:
up /sbin/wondershaper eth0 X Y
Would like to do the same if possible in the zone config.
On Wed,
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Linda Kateley wrote:
>
> If I remember right, zone create automatically create a mount using lofi.. I
> used to add additional ones.
Not true except for LX zones (which lofs mount things into /native) and
Joyent-brand zones on SmartOS. There's talk about us doi
If I remember right, zone create automatically create a mount using
lofi.. I used to add additional ones.
If you google old preso's of mine called "zany for zones" I used to show
examples.
On 1/10/17 8:05 PM, Mini Trader wrote:
Any examples on what needs to be done to make this work with LO
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Andy Fiddaman wrote:
>
> Will we still be able to to configure the networking under zonecfg?
Yes.
> Basically what I'm asking is can we stop our zones from being able to change
> their IP address?
That's a different question, and the answer is going to be no goi
Hi,
"Mini Trader" írta 2017-01-10 18:49-kor:
> Currently the UID Mapping between the host (OmniOS) and my zone (Linux) is
> based purely on UID. Obviously the UID's on my Linux zone are going to be
> very different from my OmniOS setup.
>
> Is there any NFS4 IDMAPD concept available here? e.g.
If you are referring to things like VT-d, then no. VT-d is not relevant to this
sort of virtualization and would provide no direct benefit to it.
LX zones are quite literally a Linux kernel syscall compatibility/translation
layer on top of the running illumos kernel. This layer is what takes s
If the hardware is there will it be used?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:33 AM Nahum Shalman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Mini Trader
> wrote:
>
> With respect to virtualization, should one be turning on any hardware
> specific feature for the VM to properly use LX or it doesn't matte
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Mini Trader
wrote:
> With respect to virtualization, should one be turning on any hardware
> specific feature for the VM to properly use LX or it doesn't matter?
>
LX doesn't require hardware virtualization support. LX zones are like other
zones except that they
With respect to virtualization, should one be turning on any hardware
specific feature for the VM to properly use LX or it doesn't matter?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:35 AM Nahum Shalman wrote:
> At this phase I would honestly recommend attempting to reproduce LX issues
> on the latest SmartOS and
Yeah… I just found that one as well and it would actually suit me needs
pretty well, I guess.
Thanks,
budy
Am 11.01.17 um 16:38 schrieb Dale Ghent:
Ah, another thing that I remembered - If you are using Supermicro server
hardware that has a SIOM expansion slot, Supermicro has a quad 10Gb SIO
Ah, another thing that I remembered - If you are using Supermicro server
hardware that has a SIOM expansion slot, Supermicro has a quad 10Gb SIO module
based on the X550 chip:
https://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/AOC-MTG-i4T.cfm
/dale
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Dale Ghen
Since you mention X540, I suppose you mean you that you want twisted pair 10Gb
ethernet ports.
You're probably looking at the Intel X710-T4. This will actually be driven by
the i40e driver rather than the ixgbe driver as the MAC is from the 10/40Gb
XL700 series but the 10Gb twisted pair PHY is
At this phase I would honestly recommend attempting to reproduce LX issues
on the latest SmartOS and reporting them to Joyent.
Anything that manifests on OmniOS but not SmartOS would be an indication
that there's something we could pull over from SmartOS to fix on OmniOS.
Chrome and Chromium I'm c
Hi guys,
I am wondering, if anyone knows about a Quad-Port 10 GbE NIC, that is
supported by omniOS? Of course, I could just stuff two X540s in the box,
but maybe someone knows about a solid alternative.
Cheers,
budy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_
On 11 Jan, 2017, at 00:03, Dan McDonald dan...@omniti.com wrote:
> Given how encompassing the 022 work is, don't hold your breath. If there are
> real, provable show-stoppers in LX, fixes may get backported.
We have setup ThinLinc (www.cendio.com) in an ubuntu 16.04 lx zone ...
ThinLinc is a s
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Dan McDonald wrote:
; Also, the big
; other change for LX I want in 022 is ipadm(1M) being able to work in an LX
; zone, so you don't have to do zonecfg(1M) for your network configuration.
Will we still be able to to configure the networking under zonecfg?
Basically what I'm
29 matches
Mail list logo
