From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 18:59:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E05416A4CE for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:59:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A0E43D1D for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:59:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2F57C5150F; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:59:38 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: E.Schuele@Computer.Org Message-ID: <20040930185938.GA4844@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1ea.2b3eae1a.2e8d9780@aol.com> <200409301355.29288.E.Schuele@Comcast.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SUOF0GtieIMvvwua" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409301355.29288.E.Schuele@Comcast.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd 5.2.1 Performance Woes X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:59:06 -0000 --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:55:29PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: > Well... you can't get much newer to BSD than me. So, most likely I have = no=20 > place in this thread at all (please be gentle). And I certainly do not= =20 > want to get in the middle of something that appears to be on the virge of= =20 > becoming personal... >=20 > But.... >=20 > I was experiencing very VERY poor performance TCP/IP wise, untill I dug u= p=20 > a tip from google.... > Someone mentioned that many ISPs do not fully support IPv6, and that 5.2.= 1=20 > would try to use it first.... and then after a timeout it would try IPv4.= =20 No, that's referring to order of DNS lookups and your ISP's broken nameserver, not TCP/IP performance. Kris --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBXFeZWry0BWjoQKURAjbHAJ9HbO9rMUxmLbs57KHPTF7G7nMHrACg9bt1 6tv+/0P2xIXloNr3hGzeP60= =iBlE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--