search for: jumbofram

Hi, Running OpenSSH 3.5p1 or 3.7.1p2 on two SGI orgin 300 systems of IRIX 6.5.17 with 4 600MHz CPU and gigabits network. Transfer a 1GB file with ftp took 28 seconds. Transfer a 1GB file with scp took 148 seconds. Use "snoop" to capture all network packets between these two systems. Ftp tansmitted about 107840 packets, but scp transmitted about 763339 packets. Is this normal? Why?

...s below, I tried some performance options, but the timings, if anything, got worse. Based on the above timings, I also don't think that the patched fuse.ko is worth the pain. Some questions: (1) Would server side AFR improve things? The servers can/could talk over dedicated GBit Ethernet with jumboframes. Judging from the howtos, server side AFR is much more problematic concerning (redundant) availibility of the service, but I first *have* to get performance somewhere near the NFS levels before there is any sense in continuing. (2) what about this libboost thing? Since the documentation makes it...

...s the >> negotiated MTU. A future commit will add proper error handling. Instead, a >> warning is emitted if the guest changes the device MTU after previously >> being given advice. > > One of the things I've been doing has been setting-up a cluster > (OpenStack) with JumboFrames, and then setting MTUs on instance vNICs > by hand to measure different MTU sizes. It would be a shame if such a > thing were not possible in the future. Keeping a warning if shrinking > the MTU would be good, leave the error (perhaps) to if an attempt is > made to go beyond the adv...

Hi, I would like to know if there is any possibility to select from iptables the files with maximum size of 300 kbytes and send them to a proxy server. As I know until now you can only mark files with maximum size of 64 kbytes. thank you in advance, Codrin. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc

The following series adds the ability for a hypervisor to set an MTU on the guest during feature negotiation phase. This is useful for VM orchestration when, for instance, tunneling is involved and the MTU of the various systems should be homogenous. The first patch adds the feature bit as described in the proposed VFIO spec addition found at

The following series adds the ability for a hypervisor to set an MTU on the guest during feature negotiation phase. This is useful for VM orchestration when, for instance, tunneling is involved and the MTU of the various systems should be homogenous. The first patch adds the feature bit as described in the proposed VFIO spec addition found at

(first post) Dear all, I have been wrestling with this issue for the past few days ; googling around doesn't seem to yield anything useful, hence this cry for help. Setup : - I am running several RHEL5.4 KVM virtio guest instances on a Dell PE R805 RHEL5.4 host. Host and guests are fully updated ; I am using iperf to test available bandwidth from 3 different locations (clients) in the