From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 23 15:38:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7967E1065679 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:38:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com) Received: from diehard.n-r-g.com (diehard.n-r-g.com [62.48.3.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7D48FC0A for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23214 invoked by uid 1001); 23 Nov 2010 15:11:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:11:53 +0100 From: Claudio Jeker To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20101123151153.GB27694@diehard.n-r-g.com> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <4CEBBB8F.70400@sentex.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: em driver, 82574L chip, and possibly ASPM X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 23 Nov 2010 15:38:39 -0000 On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 11/23/10 14:03, Mike Tancsa wrote: > >On 11/23/2010 7:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > >>It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine > >>which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which > >>apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread: > >> > >>http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2908463&group_id=42302&atid=447449 > >> > >> > > > >Interesting, this is the same nic that has been giving me grief! Mine is > >on an Intel server board (S3420GPX). The symptoms are VERY similar to > >what the LINUX user sees as well with RX errors and the traffic patterns. > > I've posted detailed info on this NIC in the thread "em card > wedging" - can you compare it with yours? > > The whole thing looks very sensitive to BIOS settings. I've just > toggled something that looked unrelated (don't remember what, I've > been toggling BIOS settings all day) and the machine has been doing > a flood-ping for 20 minutes without wedging (which doesn't mean it > won't wedge as soon as I send this message, it did such things > before). > > One other thing, I don't know if this is normal as I've only just > noticed it: flood-pinging a machine (also a FreeBSD machine, on the > same switch) and monitoring the packet rates with netstat I see that > the rates begin at something like 8,000 PPS (in either direction) > and then slowly over a timespan of 5-10 minutes climb to 100,000 PPS > (again, in either direction). > > Since this is gigabit LAN with a Cisco switch, I'd say the 100,000 > PPS should be correct. The other machine I'm pinging also has an em > card but a "desktop class" one. Is this slow-start expected / > normal? > Yes, this is how ping -f works. ping -f sends a packet whenever it received a response or when a timer fired (IIRC that one is set to 1ms). So ping -f will not ramp up if the delay is smaller then the internal timer and hover around 1/delay pps until packet loss or bigger delays happen. -- :wq Claudio