From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Nov 26 05:07:56 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F1B1A8A61 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47MX3J3KwYz4NcG for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 725A31A8A60; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722021A8A5F for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47MX3J2TvJz4NcF for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C4F20161 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xAQ57uAW092953 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xAQ57ui8092952 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 166724] [re] if_re watchdog timeout Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:54 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: yongari@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:07:56 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D166724 Chris Hutchinson changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |portmaster@bsdforge.com --- Comment #39 from Chris Hutchinson --- I'd also like to add a "me too" here. I've been evaluating how well FreeBSD works with dual port NICs with the intent of using multiport 10G (Mellanox?) cards if it performs well. Years of experience with re(4)'s has shown that they are stable performers, and inexpensive. Which is why I chose it for the trial. It worked well for some 4-6 mos. But we're now plagued with watchdog timeout errors, with the *only* working solution being; to bounce the box(es). I'm *guessing* greater pressure on the wire(s) to be the reason for it happening now, and not earlier. Any insight (with a cure) would be *greatly* appreciated. Details follow: 11.1-STABLE r327867 amd64 watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout watchdog timeout rc.conf(5) ifconfig_re0=3D"inet AA.BBB.CC.XX netmask 255.255.255.0 rxcsum txcsum tso4" ifconfig_re1=3D"inet AA.BBB.CC.WW netmask 255.255.255.0 rxcsum txcsum tso4" ifconfig_re1_alias0=3D"inet AA.BBB.CC.ZZ netmask 255.255.255.0" ifconfig(8) re0: flags=3D8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 options=3D8219b ether 00:13:3b:0f:13:44 hwaddr 00:13:3b:0f:13:44 inet6 fe80::213:3bff:fe0f:1344%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1=20 inet AA.BBB.CC.XX netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 24.113.41.255=20 nd6 options=3D23 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT ) status: active re1: flags=3D8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 options=3D8219b ether 00:13:3b:0f:13:45 hwaddr 00:13:3b:0f:13:45 inet AA.BBB.CC.WW netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 24.113.41.255=20 inet AA.BBB.CC.ZZ netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 24.113.41.255=20 inet6 fe80::213:3bff:fe0f:1345%re1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2=20 nd6 options=3D23 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT ) status: active lo0: flags=3D8049 metric 0 mtu 16384 options=3D600003 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128=20 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3=20 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000=20 nd6 options=3D21 groups: lo=20 pciconf(8) re0@pci0:5:0:0: class=3D0x020000 card=3D0x012310ec chip=3D0x816810ec rev=3D= 0x07 hdr=3D0x00 vendor =3D 'Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.' device =3D 'RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controll= er' class =3D network subclass =3D ethernet re1@pci0:6:0:0: class=3D0x020000 card=3D0x012310ec chip=3D0x816810ec rev=3D= 0x07 hdr=3D0x00 vendor =3D 'Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.' device =3D 'RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controll= er' class =3D network subclass =3D ethernet Thanks again! --Chris --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=