Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:23:30 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Matthew Kolb <muk@msu.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAWS ack-on-ack loop avoided Message-ID: <200212231723.gBNHNUWq037721@apollo.backplane.com> References: <17B1C4BA-1689-11D7-B9A8-0003936F5EBA@msu.edu> <20021223164003.GA59377@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The printf() is only in HEAD for feedback purposes. I'd like to leave
it in there just a little while longer (maybe a week at the rate things
are going). It looks like more people are hitting this bug(fix) then
we previously thought would hit it, which is actually somewhat worrying
because it only occurs when you get out-of-order timestamp replies.
Could you tell me what services were running or what you were doing
when you got the warnings? Are you running a web server? Talking
to windows boxes at all?
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
:>=20
:> Which appears to just be triggered by a mechanism to drop
:> bad packets. Is this correct? Is this something I should be
:> concerned about?
:>=20
:Matt,
:
:I'm seeing these too. Can you please remove the relevant
:printf() or at least limit it to the ``if (verbose)'' or
:DIAGNOSTIC, whatever is more appropriate?
:
:
:Cheers,
:--=20
:Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
:ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG,
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200212231723.gBNHNUWq037721>