From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 14:36:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF7916A492 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:36:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD8E43E5F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:35:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1GY1e4-000AFI-2T; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:34:48 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Mike Tancsa In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:13:05 -0400 . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:34:47 +0200 From: Danny Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, feebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:36:21 -0000 > >short version: > >the point im trying to make, is that the same setup, where I only change > >the release, is going downhill - with this particular MB. > > But its not the same necessarily. Some of the settings are different. > For example, disable net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable on 6.x if you want > it to be the same setting as on 4. This kicks in when the hosts are > not directly connected and can hamper performance. I assume that by directly connected you mean not connected via WAN, and so, yes these hosts are on the same vlan, and no, net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=1/0 make no difference in any case, other boxes are doing ok (well, could be better, but not as bad as this one). danny