From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 27 08:22:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD2416A400 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:22:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000E513C45A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:22:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 34so83579nzf for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:22:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=oNAVYH2G9KXZDEwvdJYZS+0CHVhiun3VMTdOHGxveo3X9d7U25z8djsZ+dPAMNZk9jkvRkGYFP+VXaMbIW5/iBR/et4NdwrG+pT/bb6gw/g4XKRzFQ6AxN03dJMZpgYOWtaVk/R63BDceVX4qgT7ccyi1ezKgHWs0Cc1mULQnlA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=cbRNVba08/Mo355G7uvM9ePKv0408SAJcq6dBXK9I0UtcFUohmVwwmZT3Y5EgqWcqMd5ph62qSpOGswq91mxRgO7m/uVCi3R3O2V6fURutqUXp1NziG5115lU6IXwCDijBhZWMej0ov+Y6IXgv2wa8BW9qIX278XwtcQdjJegHw= Received: by 10.114.199.1 with SMTP id w1mr288571waf.1182932545880; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v35sm3744898wah.2007.06.27.01.22.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l5R8MHA2046384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:22:17 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l5R8MG6i046383; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:22:16 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:22:16 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: george+freebsd@m5p.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070627082216.GB45303@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <200706270033.l5R0Xkf9084990@mail.reprise.com> <20070627061223.GE1221@funkthat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070627061223.GE1221@funkthat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Subject: Re: Gigabit Ethernet w/Jumbo Frames X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:22:27 -0000 On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:12:23PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > george+freebsd@m5p.com wrote this message on Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 17:33 -0700: > > I'm having poor luck trying to use NFS over a gigabit ethernet using > > jumbo frames. By all indications, my switch (Netgear GS608) forwards > > jumbo frames with no difficulty, but my Realtek 8169-based cards seem > > Are you sure? I just tried w/ my GS608 again, and it still doesn't > pass jumbo frames... I specifically bought a second switch, an SMC > 8508T so that I could work on jumbo frame support... I took my MBP > to the SMC and verified that I could ping 5k packets w/o fragmentation > between the two (MBP and a FreeBSD-current box w/ an em card) boxes, > and then took my MBP to the Netgear, and the remote box would not see > the large pings... > > I just checked Netgear's website, and they do list Jumbo Frame support.. > Either I have an old switch and newer ones support it, or they depend > upon that most people can't figure out to make jumbo frames work > reliabily and depend upon people just using 1500 byte frames... > I guess re(4) should not generate watchdog errors even if intermediate switches drop/fragment jumbo frames. -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon