Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:16:58 -0500 From: Mark Mayo <mark@vmunix.com> To: John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? Message-ID: <19971202231658.13959@vmunix.com> In-Reply-To: <3485dac6.74174125@mail.cetlink.net>; from John Kelly on Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 04:10:26AM %2B0000 References: <1254.881054658@time.cdrom.com> <3485dac6.74174125@mail.cetlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 04:10:26AM +0000, John Kelly wrote: > On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 01:24:18 -0800, "Jordan K. Hubbard" > <jkh@time.cdrom.com> wrote: > > >> Any guesses as to when is 3.0 -release is going > > >Sometime in the spring of 1998. And that's as specific as I'm > >going to get. :) > > What's the hurry? NATD falls over on my 3.0, pretty current. I > haven't had a chance yet to compare 2.2-stable. NATD works fine for me on 2.2-STABLE. I regularily move in excess of 10GB per day across two fxp interfaces "connected" with NATD. The only problems I've ever had with NATD were when I had a 100Mb/s fxp pumping data to an de 10Mb/s card - I got interupt underflow errors, and odd things happening like transfers starting out at the full 1000K/s and slowly dieing out to 30-40K/s.. weird. Replacing the Digital card with another Intel seemed to fix it. I'm not sure if this was a pure hardware problem, or a de driver problem that couldn't deal with the amount of data the Intel card was dumping at it. At any rate, throwing in the Intel card worked, so it's almost certainly not a NATD problem. I'm curious, how/why is NATD falling over on -CURRENT?? I'm planning on setting up a 3.0 box with NATD very shortly.. -Mark > > John > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Mayo mark@vmunix.com RingZero Comp. http://www.vmunix.com/mark finger mark@vmunix.com for my PGP key and GCS code ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Win95/NT - 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. -UGU
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971202231658.13959>