Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\(no\s+subject\)\s*$/: 68 ]

Total 68 documents matching your query.

41. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: mailperson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 09 Aug 2003 09:44:34 -0400
/archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01227.html (6,165 bytes)

42. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: bob.olszewski@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:05:17 -0400
Hi, I caught your name on a site and was wondering if you had any advise on this scenario. I'm running HA on multi-networked server, one interface (eth1)  is a member of the HA group that customers c
/archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00797.html (6,798 bytes)

43. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:00:49 +1000 (EST)
Hi Dave, Please pull from bk://kernel.bkbits.net/jmorris/net-2.5 for the followng changesets: ChangeSet@xxxxxxxxxx, 2003-06-29 20:37:48+10:00, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [IPV6] Don't set M flag in last
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01755.html (7,379 bytes)

44. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Please pull from bk://kernel.bkbits.net/jmorris/net-2.5 for the followng changesets: Pulled, thanks James.
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01758.html (7,272 bytes)

45. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: "santosh kumar gowda" <ipv6_san@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:30:46 -0600
Well, i have a Linux machine i686 and an IAD based on MIPS 32-bit arch, both enabled with IPv6. Linux with 2.4.18-14 based on i686 configured as... IAD with 2.4.5-pre1 kernel based on MIPS 32-bit cor
/archives/netdev/2003-02/msg00298.html (10,672 bytes)

46. Re: (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:37:08 +0100 (MET)
[...] Decode the oops first or nobody will be able to give any help. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--+ + e-mail: macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, PGP key available +
/archives/netdev/2003-02/msg00302.html (8,382 bytes)

47. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: "jenil68@xxxxxxxx" <jenil68@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:55:45 +0800
/archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00266.html (6,992 bytes)

48. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: "mike obi" <ekointernationalbank@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:59:45 -0800
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL From the Desk of: Dr. Mike Obi EKO INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC, NIGERIA . ATTN: MANAGING DIRECTOR/CEO, Sir, Permit me to introduce myself to you. My name is Mr Mike Obi, Manager with
/archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00308.html (9,648 bytes)

49. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:42:10 +1100 (EST)
Bind9 trys to bind :: and all ipv4 addresses on the node. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01161.html (7,568 bytes)

50. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:39:59 +1100 (EST)
As far as I've understood, sendfile() won't do much good with large files. Is this right? We're talking of 3-6GB files here ... roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester ProntoTV AS - http://www.p
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01162.html (7,685 bytes)

51. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:45:07 +1100 (EST)
just to clearify s/MBps/Mbps/ s/bps/bits per second/ I really don't know. Just to clearify a little more - the server app uses O_DIRECT to read the data before tossing it to the socket. What do you
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01163.html (8,553 bytes)

52. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:17:55 +1100 (EST)
<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>=B9=D9=B7=B9=B9=CC=BC=D2</TITLE> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Deuc= <style> <!-- body, table, tr, td, SELECT,input,DIV,form,TEXTAREA {font-fam
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01164.html (15,927 bytes)

53. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:37:33 +1100 (EST)
Ordinary DUAL Pentium 400 MHz machine does this... Calculating CPU speed...done Testing checksum speed...done Testing RAM copy...done Testing I/O port speed...done CPU Clock = 400 MHz checksum speed
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01165.html (9,036 bytes)

54. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:10:12 +1100 (EST)
Costing you 864 megabytes per second? Lets say the checksum was free. You are then able to INF bytes/per/sec. So it's costing you INF bytes/per/sec? No, it's costing you nothing. If we were not deali
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01166.html (9,172 bytes)

55. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:52:41 +1100 (EST)
This kind of thing is only applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 (and badly even there), there is no use trying to generalize it -- the idea was discarded. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01167.html (39,166 bytes)

56. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:35:27 +1100 (EST)
All, Just tried 2.4.20-pre11 and all NIC issues seem to be resolved. Both eepro100 and e100 drivers work correctly. Paul No! There is not link partner. 0000 is the default value for the register when
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01168.html (9,174 bytes)

57. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:16:01 +1100 (EST)
micheal, that article is a bit obsolete. i will update it as soon as possible, but until next week there is no chance i can do it (friday i will get my MS degree in electronic engineering and i am __
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01169.html (9,371 bytes)

58. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:33:26 +1100 (EST)
I'm just curious... what happened to the generic option, SO_ONEFAMILY, that would replace the need for IPV6_V6ONLY? RFC2553. (IPV6_V6ONLY Support) - Rev.2 /cvsroot/usagi/usagi-backport/linux24/Docume
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01170.html (35,407 bytes)

59. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:05:32 +1100 (EST)
Hi all, First of all, I hope this is no inconvenience to anyone, but I thought it may be of interest to some people on the netdev mailinglist as well. Just to inform people who may be interested, the
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01171.html (9,100 bytes)

60. (no subject) (score: 1)
Author: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:14:53 +1100 (EST)
Yep, sorry, word, not byte. My bad. The cost is in the fact that this whole process involves loading each word of the data stream into a register. Which is why I also used to consider the checksum co
/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg01173.html (8,457 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu