From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <203975f49e91f93a5b4df848ead8e5c2@kw.quanstro.net> <7b531b6b4731db24073f6404b374c8eb@brasstown.quanstro.net> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:15:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Akshat Kumar To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [9fans] auth server with two NICs Topicbox-Message-UUID: 426d293e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 nevermind, it's the network... or hardware... I tried just the very basic setup at the top of http://www.9grid.fr/www.9grid.fr/wiki/plan9/Drawterm_to_your_terminal/ and I get the same poor performance. network sux! On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Akshat Kumar wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> a bad network? > > I thought so at first, but if instead of using separate /net and /net.alt > mountpoints for the two networks, I simply, as I said before, > > bind -b '#l1' /net > bind -b '#I1' /net > > and start auth service, etc., afterwards (so that they start only on > the external interface), then from testing last night, there is no such > lag in drawterm or dropped packets on ping. now, it could just be > the timing of things (like, when I tested, etc.)... but if I drawterm to > a remote network, it's *much* faster, and pinging around to other > things doesn't cause dropped packets. > > So, I'm lead to believe that the problem is in a configuration of > two network interfaces, where the default is the internal network, > which is bound to /net, and the external network is bound to /net.alt > is there some reason or way that incoming calls could be confused, > or it might take time for the server to find the right place to reply > from? I dunno... but the performance is killing me. >