From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 13 16:06:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2847716A4CE for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:06:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postal3.es.net (postal3.es.net [198.128.3.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0F743D5A for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:06:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal3.es.net (Postal Node 3) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:06:11 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 74F845D04; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT) To: Doug White In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:19:09 PDT." <20040812191715.A86599@carver.gumbysoft.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:06:11 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040813160611.74F845D04@ptavv.es.net> cc: igor@ktts.kharkov.ua cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.2.1 performance issue X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:06:12 -0000 > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:19:09 -0700 (PDT) > From: Doug White > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 igor@ktts.kharkov.ua wrote: > > > I noticed that box started getting input errors on em0. > > In order to fix that I increased EM_MAX_TXD from 256 to 1024 and > > EM_MAX_RXD from 256 to 2048. > > After that Input errors disappeared but I continued getting intr_queue_drops > > counter increasing. > > You might double check your duplex settings, and if you're on a managed > switch, the stats there. It may not have autonegotaited properly after > the reboot. > > Also make sure you aren't running with WITNESS and INVARIANTS. Those are > big CPU pigs. WITNESS is certainly a big CPU hog, but I don't see why INVARIANTS would be all that significant. And both are disabled in 5.2.1 GENERIC. I'd bet on either a duplex mis-match or an auto-negotiation failure. Both are very common and the latter can be a pain to deal with. (Don't assume that you can just nail up one end.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634