Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:00:57 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef-ctm@yandex.ru> Subject: Re: nve related LOR triggered by lots of small packets, and a hard hang Message-ID: <20070118180057.GD65429@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <200701101432.41201.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20070110120731.GA1515@shark.localdomain> <200701100910.13167.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070110155331.GA2762@shark.localdomain> <200701101432.41201.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:32:40PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 10:53, Sergey Zaharchenko wrote: > > Hello John! > > > > Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:10:12AM -0500 you wrote: > > [snip] > > > Have you tried using nfe(4)? :) > > > > Now I have, and it works just fine, thanks (I somehow thought nfe was > > specific to some platform). Why isn't it the default? Smaller range of > > hardware supported? > > It's just newer. I think perhaps current@ should switch to nfe(4) rather > than nve(4) by default. David, any objections to that? nfe(4) is not ready - I recently got two new machines that nve(4) works fine on and nfe(4) is totally broken on. I had hoped to make nfe(4) the default already and MFC it to RELENG_6, but I think that will only bring PR's to us. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070118180057.GD65429>