On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:44:17PM +0200, Simon Mages wrote:
> Thats true, i found also another bug in this diff, the new one follows.
OK bluhm@
> Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c,v
> re
2016-07-05 15:36 GMT+02:00, Claudio Jeker :
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 07:22:27AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
>> Makes sense to me. Others?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages
>> wrote:
>> > At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the
>> > current value
>> > is
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 07:22:27AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> Makes sense to me. Others?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages
> wrote:
> > At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the
> > current value
> > is smaller.
> >
> > The following diff fixes this prob
Makes sense to me. Others?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Simon Mages wrote:
> At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the
> current value
> is smaller.
>
> The following diff fixes this problem.
>
> Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c
>
At the moment the buffersize will be set to the default even if the
current value
is smaller.
The following diff fixes this problem.
Index: netinet/tcp_usrreq.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c,v
retrieving revision 1.
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:46:22 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>there is some pretty serious hardware behind it...
>http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/indexabout.html
Those guys have some serious uses for that equipment in addition to
being a great source of ftp mirrors.
They are ready (or very close) to h
On 2010/07/03 18:17, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you
> > can kill the boxes easily.
some would also say that 16K is insane ;-)
> You don't need 35MB per client
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 05:40:45PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> 35M, that is insane. Either they have machines with infinite memory or you
> can kill the boxes easily.
You don't need 35MB per client connection if interfaces like sendfile(2)
are used. All the kernel has to guarantee in that case i
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail
> if socket buffers are set above 256k?
>
There is this magical define in uipc_socket2.c called SB_MAX that limits
the socket buffers to 256k going over
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 11:54:17AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail
> if socket buffers are set above 256k?
You might have to patch sb_max for that.
Joerg
Does anyone know offhand the reason why network connections fail
if socket buffers are set above 256k?
# sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=262145
# telnet naiad 80
Trying 2a01:348:108:108:a00:20ff:feda:88b6...
Trying 195.95.187.35...
#
I was thinking of looking into it, but before going down that
11 matches
Mail list logo
