Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:28:59 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> To: Oleg Polyakov <opolyakov@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, Anders Nordby <anders@FreeBSD.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, kuriyama@FreeBSD.org, demon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 64-bit SNMP counters for FreeBSD && graphing bandwidth usage Message-ID: <20060214102735.U5083@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <20060214092456.97708.qmail@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060214092456.97708.qmail@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Oleg Polyakov wrote: OP>--- Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> wrote: OP> OP>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:39:00AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: OP>> H> AN>I changed port to 163 cause I am actually using net-snmp snmpd on port OP>> H> AN>161 still. Anyway, it seems bsnmpd insists these are 10 mbps OP>> interfaces? OP>> H> AN>Why so? OP>> H> OP>> H> The driver reports a speed of 10Mbits/sec. ifHighSpeed is ifi_baudrate OP>> H> divided by 10^6 (and rounded). This is the default set by ether_ifattach() OP>> OP>> H> if the driver did not set another value. It seems that bge never sets that OP>> OP>> H> value so you end up with the default. This looks like a bug. OP>> OP>> Harti, we are thinking in parallel :) OP> OP>Parallel, yes ;) Wow! Seems the massive introduction of dual-core CPUs and multiprocessor machines starts to give results :-) And all that without mutexes and locks. harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060214102735.U5083>