search for: 64bytes

...evel/2009-June/001891.html Joel Becker Wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 03:46:04AM +0800, Coly Li wrote: >> Joel Becker Wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 03:00:05AM +0800, Coly Li wrote: >> [snip] >>>> My original purpose is to find where to initiate a lvb with 64bytes, but from >>>> mount.ocfs2 code, I don't find anywhere to create a dlm lockspace (before create >>>> a lock) so far. >>> I'm not sure why you need an LVB in mount.ocfs2, let alone a dlm >>> lockspace. >>> >> Hi Joel, >> >&gt...

...00993 sec 22:33:03.366 Timer: 1178317983.366 sec 183366 600.000 sec 0.001 sec 600000 1178317800.000 sec 22:33:03.369 detected 3 interfaces 22:33:03.369 detected 3 real interfaces initializing... starting traffic generator... starting all actions... 22:33:03.373 starting CBR (60.000 sec, 5pkts/sec a 64bytes) Sender 192.85.3.2/2000 <- 17 -> 192.85.4.1/2001 22:33:03.373 signalling RSVP for CBR (60.000 sec, 5pkts/sec a 64bytes) Sender 192.85.3.2/2000 <- 17 -> 192.85.4.1/2001 data start synchronized 22:33:23.372 RSVP timeout: CBR (60.000 sec, 5pkts/sec a 64bytes) Sender 192.85.3.2/2000 <- 1...

I am looking for PHP functions that implement passwords that much the dovecotpw implementation. I downloaded one from PEAR, Crypt_HMAC, but the passwords it generates look nothing like the dovecotpw passwords, which could be my fault because I know nothing about the field. Is there a guide or some library that implements them to match dovecotpw?

...performance benchmark > figures using LRP [ Linux Router Project ], because we don''t have a good > net benchmark to use. From what I have seen linux chokes bit on small > packets, but can do quite well with larger ones. In one example I saw > the box could only handle 10Mb/s @64bytes, but at 1500byte packets it > could do 100Mb no problem. I''d say avg traffic is closer to 1500 then it > is 64. (to further complicate things any firewalling will effect this) > > Without question 200Mb/s is quite demanding and a ''real'' firewall will > prob...

Hi Jason, I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you try any other values? Also, did you measure how polling affects many VMs talking to each other (e.g. 20 VMs on each host, perhaps with several vNICs each, transmitting to a corresponding VM/vNIC pair on another host)? On a complete separate experiment (busy waiting on storage I/O rings on Xen), I have observed

Hi Jason, I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you try any other values? Also, did you measure how polling affects many VMs talking to each other (e.g. 20 VMs on each host, perhaps with several vNICs each, transmitting to a corresponding VM/vNIC pair on another host)? On a complete separate experiment (busy waiting on storage I/O rings on Xen), I have observed

On 11/12/2015 08:02 PM, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you try any other values? I've also tried 20us. And results shows 50us was better in: - very small packet tx (e.g 64bytes at most 46% improvement) - TCP_RR (at most 11% improvement) But I will test bigger values. In fact, for net itself, we can be even more aggressive: make vhost poll forever but I haven't tired this. > > Also, did you measure how polling affects many VMs talking to each other (e.g. 20 VMs...

...t residual calllers of gem_exec() to gem_execbuf() tests: Add gem_exec_reloc lib: Hide BSD1/BSD2 rings on hardware without BSD2 igt/gem_ringfill: Set MI_MEM_VIRTUAL flag for gen<6 igt: More MI_STORE_DWORD fixes for gen5 igt/gem_cs_tlb: Increase BB start alignment to 64bytes igt/gem_busy: Refactor to use gem_require_ring() igt/gem_streaming_writes: Set bb start alignment to 64b for Ironlake igt/gem_ringfill: Add exercising the default-ring to basic testing igt/drv_hangman: Inject a true hang igt/drv_hangman: Make the batchbuffer check more...

Hi all :) I''m new to this list, as I''m new too to traffic shaping ;) I''ve set up an FTP server in my ADSL line and I wanted it to serve as fast as possible as long as I don''t use my outgoing ADSL bandwidth, and I''m currently using HTB for that (succesfully, I must add). The problem is (when the FTP server is serving higher than its

...twork performance benchmark > figures using LRP [ Linux Router Project ], because we don't have a good > net benchmark to use. From what I have seen linux chokes bit on small > packets, but can do quite well with larger ones. In one example I saw > the box could only handle 10Mb/s @64bytes, but at 1500byte packets it > could do 100Mb no problem. I'd say avg traffic is closer to 1500 then it > is 64. (to further complicate things any firewalling will effect this) > > Without question 200Mb/s is quite demanding and a 'real' firewall will > probably give you...