On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Oliver Xymoron (oxymoron@waste.org) wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > A 100ms delay sounds like some interrupt shut up or similar (and then
> > > timer handling makes it limp along).
> >
> > Possibly related datapoint: after several days of uptime, my
> > 2.4.0-test10pre? machine went into some sort of slow mode after coming
> > back from suspend (and doing an /etc/init.d/networking restart). Symptoms
> > seemed to be extra second or so setting up a TCP connection. Ping, etc.,
> > appeared to work just fine, no packet loss apparent, bandwidth looked good
> > too. Sadly I had to do actual work that required zippy web access, so I
> > rebooted rather than doing a thorough diagnostic. This is a VAIO with
> > compiled in eepro100, no special networking options.
>
> Actually, I figured out what it was and I feel kind of stupid, and
> suprised. I knew I should have tried rebooting before complaining. It
> turns out it actually was something in my firewall rules, it appears that
> for every logged packet there is something along the lines of a 100ms
> delay that gets added on.
Hmmm, that's seems rather extreme - does it have to wait for klogd to get
scheduled before it proceeds? I would expect the filtering to be down in
the noise except at fairly high loads.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:32 EST