Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:46:56 +0400 From: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf 4.1 Update available for testing Message-ID: <20070703164655.GA1707@void.codelabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070620190423.GH26920@void.codelabs.ru> References: <200706160347.33331.max@love2party.net> <20070617094126.GT3779@void.codelabs.ru> <200706171717.21585.max@love2party.net> <20070619074150.GC26920@void.codelabs.ru> <4677FF00.4060506@root.org> <20070620152609.GD26920@void.codelabs.ru> <20070620190423.GH26920@void.codelabs.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate, Max, good day. Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:04:23PM +0400, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > This error can potentially be responsible to the weird bandwidth > values I am having with the altq on my notebook. The issue is > described on the thread > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070730.html > Basically, I am setting one BW limit in pf.conf and seeing another > one (much lower) via the ifstat utility. > > I was able only to test the compilation of the new patched kernel. > No bandwidth tests were done: I have no access to the fast LAN link > up to the Monday, 24th, sorry. May be I will be able to setup > ng_eiface and test with it, but I am not fluent with the netgraph. > Will post an update if tests will be carried. At last, carried the tests. No luck: still seeing weird bandwidth numbers as compared with the setting in the pf.conf. But still, the second issue about non-initialized variables can be committed: it will not harm. What do you both think? Thank you. -- Eygene
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070703164655.GA1707>