Re: Re[4]: 2.4.9 UDP broke?

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jeremiah Johnson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: MD5
> 
> Hello volodya,
> 
> I found the answer to the problem today.  It has to do with a bug in
> one of these options:
> 
> CONFIG_TULIP_MWI
> CONFIG_TULIP_MMIO

Hmm, interesting. I'll check the latest version of tulip (as well as the
one on Donald Becker's website). Did you try them out already ?

                          Vladimir Dergachev

> 
> Since the system is a older dual p100 I didn't really want to sit
> through the 2 hours of compilation to "test" which one it is.  I'm
> willing to bet its CONFIG_TULIP_MWI though since its still marked as
> experimental.  With both of these options disabled 2.4.9 works fine on
> that system though as it does on my other boxes.  Whoever maintains
> the code for those two config options might want to do some testing.
> I can provide more information about the system if needed.
> 
> Sunday, September 02, 2001, 7:25:44 PM, you wrote:
> 
> vmc> I had a very similar experience. In my case it turned out that for some
> vmc> reason no UDP packets above 5524 would come through (try pinging with
> vmc> larger than default packet sizes). The solution was to restrict NFS to
> vmc> 5000 (actually 4096) size packets. I have not been able to figure out the
> vmc> cause of this yet. (and yes, tcpdump was able to see them fine).
> 
> vmc>                             Vladimir Dergachev
> 
> 
> - --
> Best regards,
>  Jeremiah                            mailto:[e-mail]
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6
> 
> iQEVAwUAO5WLyZHTj7BlqKb5AQFiIQf8DG8rppS8oNKQvmQts2rFQzx0MVizZZv/
> p12tm+bcToP8jg6OKL0hzkeL59k3RgJpbjSleHl6VHgGzZ4VfZuvtE7gwA0e/Ch8
> MQck+diQkDY14qM+qxdIhwjuSyt+qDTlOPge/MZKNvtGckYkQ9qKVHiWbKWuxlYS
> U4N8knpXHUZ9fM+hPPqi/0yNfwx6g7QbtLycYJzP0GIDSzP4y/P30HMkSJ9EUzP1
> MQCho4dj2K2WvMyrNVAO70Nj90j1ioU7vJE2LMooKrZmWBpBSMX6MMKr//lJP73H
> RTQLNZmRGbBtblq4QiXai6OpEYkaaE84iutfs9JbssOJ+S2cxNDM1g==
> =XNHF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>