Re: Using event counters with network interfaces, is there a reason they're all ifdefed out of mainline use?

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:24:45AM -0800, Brian Buhrow wrote: > hello. I'm interested in seeing detailed errors like CRC, frame, > underrun and overrun error counts. Further investigation reveals that > drivers that came later in the game, i.e. nfe(4) and age(4) don't have > latent support

Re: Using event counters with network interfaces, is there a reason they're all ifdefed out of mainline use?

hello. I'm interested in seeing detailed errors like CRC, frame, underrun and overrun error counts. Further investigation reveals that drivers that came later in the game, i.e. nfe(4) and age(4) don't have latent support for these counters, but it looks fairly easily added. While

Re: Using event counters with network interfaces, is there a reason they're all ifdefed out of mainline use?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 05:04:41AM -0800, Brian Buhrow wrote: > Hello. I notice that most, if not all, of the network drivers in > NetBSD have interface counters which they use to track things like > collisions, CRC errors, framing errors, etc. It looks like these counters, You have these

Re: Using event counters with network interfaces, is there a reason they're all ifdefed out of mainline use?

> drivers. Is there a reason all of these counting facilities are not > enabled by default in GENERIC kernels? Does using these counters impose such > a > performance penalty that general use was deemed too crippling? Do you try any benchmark? (by ttcp(1) etc.) During mec(4) (on sgimips O2) d

Using event counters with network interfaces, is there a reason they're all ifdefed out of mainline use?

Hello. I notice that most, if not all, of the network drivers in NetBSD have interface counters which they use to track things like collisions, CRC errors, framing errors, etc. It looks like these counters, and the framework for displayng these counters has been in NetBSD for well over 10