From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 3 22:00:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA2C106566B for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 22:00:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E458FC12 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 22:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vx0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 34so660654vxc.13 for ; Tue, 03 May 2011 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I1hBrnPduGsGNLWbaeUk96TK0PUn4Lix2LirKJyofXs=; b=FMt0i8krIckzlhgf/+3DsJbefn1U7H2sdOiFj/kdFcbYBDYR+DzqYhmDxThBF9w4NU XmmCi6QFmyQPk9cZPRNHrhHniKhX7g25d+RAsgJAZEzJu/UCwS2YiUBYy179UQZ066p4 Ks0hNUD+0kcMABiCPD8g4O/GNn6oyQt2J/zj8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=XzUmu57oCz1ki/xKpXTad+73g8XkhfN5IZt7n0f113CjcKww2Qqi+BIhxjenQgK4Ek +YgISYfGffKFBSXpNH/utQQXyvYJwByDUzHJsSV8sgPQ6EelMyRZ9bMJfVHaOMNJieW5 pLSyHf1RoHkgfO1MPuewtIRyCcfm07l+ZZw64= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.76.193 with SMTP id m1mr478215vdw.204.1304460020251; Tue, 03 May 2011 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.184.169 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DC078BD.9080908@gmx.net> References: <4D94A354.9080903@sentex.net> <4DC07013.9070707@gmx.net> <4DC078BD.9080908@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:00:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Michael Schmiedgen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Olivier Smedts , FreeBSD current mailing list , Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: problems with em(4) since update to driver 7.2.2 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: Tue, 03 May 2011 22:00:21 -0000 It has nothing to do with load, it has to do with the prerequisites to init your interfaces. The amount you need is fixed, it doesn't vary with load. Every RX descriptor needs one, so its simple math, number-of-interfaces X number-of-queues X size of the ring. If you have other network interfaces beside Intel they also consume mbufs remember. Jack On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Michael Schmiedgen wrote: > On 03.05.2011 23:24, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> If you get the setup receive structures fail, then increase the >> nmbclusters. >> >> If you use standard MTU then what you need are mbufs, and standard size >> clusters (2K). >> Only when you use jumbo frames will you need larger. >> >> You must configure enough, its that simple. >> > > I doubled the nmbclusters as well. But nothing happened. > > I have no load on this machine and nothing special > configured. > > Thanks, > Michael >