Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:51:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@CS.Duke.EDU> To: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems? Message-ID: <199709142051.QAA27413@hurricane.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <7386.874113565@orion.webspan.net> References: <19970912094231.48481@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <7386.874113565@orion.webspan.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Palmer writes: > Karl Denninger wrote in message ID > <19970912094231.48481@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>: > > Hi foolks, > > > > Anyone got an idea what this means? > > > > de1: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (raising TX threshold to 96|256) > > de1: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (raising TX threshold to 8|512) > > de1: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (raising TX threshold to 1024) > > de1: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (switching to store-and-forward > > mode > > According to Matt, this is a problem with the PCI bus on the m/b not > being fast enough to handle the data. He says the Natoma is > notoriously slow (which is why I saw the messages too) Actually, the the Natoma is pretty nice. Under heavy load, its true that it might not get DMA's done as quickly as a Triton. But that's not because the Natoma is slow, rather its because the the Natoma is fair. Under heavy load, a Triton will starve the CPU from memory, whereas a Natama will divide the memory bandwidth up pretty much equally between the PCI bus and the CPU. I imagine this would allow the host to post more transmits & make the card fall further behind.. Drew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin Duke University Email: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Department of Computer Science Phone: (919) 660-6590
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709142051.QAA27413>