From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 17:12:29 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D015616A400 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:12:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sameh@anthologeek.net) Received: from anthocore.anthologeek.net (anthocore.anthologeek.net [213.186.53.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E7813C4BC for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:12:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sameh@anthologeek.net) Received: from anthocore.anthologeek.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthocore.anthologeek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B803959B7; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:47:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by anthocore.anthologeek.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E56E2959B3; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:47:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:47:37 +0200 From: Sameh Ghane To: Steve Kargl Message-ID: <20070621164737.GB54284@anthologeek.net> References: <20070621160742.GA10264@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070621160742.GA10264@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> X-PGP-Keys: 0x1289F00D: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which GigE NIC for reliable use? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:12:29 -0000 Le (On) Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:07:43AM -0700, Steve Kargl ecrivit (wrote): > > Jun 20 23:22:33 node10 kernel: TCP: [10.208.78.111]:54801 to > [10.208.78.111]:49376 tcpflags 0x10; syncache_expand: Segment failed > SYNCOOKIE authentication, segment rejected (probably spoofed) How does a local communication get affected by your NIC's behavior !? You seem to use Jumbo frames, maybe the link loss is switch related ? > So, I plan to replace all of the bge devices with a reliable, > robust GigE NIC. Anyone have a suggestion for such a cards? I would go for em(4) because the driver works really fine, for quite some time. Polling support is really good, and helps reducing interrupts. In my experience, even while comparing non polling mode kernels, other NICs (or their drivers) tend to generate more interrupts. It has nice sysctl tuning variables (ahem, actually the man page is a bit obsolete, but browsing the sysctl tree will help you find the new variable names). Hardware is easy to find and widespread (driver available since FBSD 4.4). It is the proud successor of fxp(4) in my humble opinion: cheap *and* efficient. Cheers, -- Sameh Ghane