Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:30:43 +0100 From: "=?iso-8859-15?Q?Jos=E9?= M. =?iso-8859-15?Q?Fandi=F1o?=" <freebsd4@fadesa.es> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces Message-ID: <42074353.9E3EECBE@fadesa.es> References: <42073FD8.5CCA7EC5@fadesa.es> <20050207102140.GA56842@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote: > > "Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote: > > > > > > Chris wrote: > > > > > > > > Have tested on 3 boxes. > > > > > > yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't > > > believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible. > > > > Finally, I found the culprit: > > > > CFLAGS="" \ 100% of the transmited traffic is received > > COPTFLAGS="" / > > > > CFLAGS= -pipe \ 50% of the transmited traffic is received > > COPTFLAGS= -pipe / > > That would be exceedingly strange, because the above two options are > supposed to produce *no differences at all* with the code generation. > > I'd believe that -O and no -O could behave differently, although I > don't know why you'd want to compile without -O. because by the time I was compiling the system I was no interested in compiler optimizations. Now I prefer a lightly optimized kernel than a system with 50% of packet lost in local interfaces ;-) -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/IT d- s+:+() a- C+++ UBL+++$ P+ L+++ E--- W++ N+ o++ K- w--- O+ M+ V- PS+ PE+ Y++ PGP+>+++ t+ 5 X+$ R- tv-- b+++ DI D++>+++ G++ e- h+(++) !r !z ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42074353.9E3EECBE>