From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 07:53:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org 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 1C19E16A41F for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:53:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ganbold@micom.mng.net) Received: from publicd.ub.mng.net (publicd.ub.mng.net [202.179.0.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ED543D46 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:53:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ganbold@micom.mng.net) Received: from [202.179.0.164] (helo=ganbold.micom.mng.net) by publicd.ub.mng.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EzUbF-0009dp-U5; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:52:54 +0800 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060119153913.0432e7e8@micom.mng.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:52:58 +0800 To: pyunyh@gmail.com From: Ganbold In-Reply-To: <20060119071613.GB44245@rndsoft.co.kr> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060118090616.04209af8@micom.mng.net> <20060118015515.GB39792@rndsoft.co.kr> <7.0.0.16.2.20060118102336.03fbcef8@micom.mng.net> <20060118023646.GA40276@rndsoft.co.kr> <7.0.0.16.2.20060119141302.04354d70@micom.mng.net> <20060119071613.GB44245@rndsoft.co.kr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fxp0: device timeout and sk0: watchdog timeout problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:53:08 -0000 Hi, At 03:16 PM 1/19/2006, you wrote: >On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:14:13PM +0800, Ganbold wrote: > > I have same problem even after updating the sk code to the latest: > > > > Jan 19 12:58:53 gw kernel: fxp0: device timeout > > Jan 19 12:59:10 gw kernel: sk0: watchdog timeout > > Jan 19 12:59:10 gw kernel: sk0: link state changed to DOWN > > > >Does interface down and up help your situation? This server is located 370km from where I'm now. People there just reboot the server. >It would be great to know what mwchan is used if your application >was blocked. mwchan? >Would you try another onboard NIC with fxp to narrow down the issue? Hard to say since it is on remote site. I could ask person there. >Since it's hard to reproduce the problem on my system I need more >information. Would you show me more information for your network >configuration and how to reproduce it? This machine is doing NAT, ipfw and it has squid from ports. It seems like 3GB-9GB web traffic is going through per day. gw# ifconfig -a sk0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 options=2b inet 175.176.1.11 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 175.176.255.255 ether 00:11:95:e1:7d:16 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) status: active pcn0: flags=8802 mtu 1500 ether 00:06:29:50:e2:3c media: Ethernet autoselect (none) status: no carrier fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 options=b inet x.x.x.x netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast x.x.x.x ether 00:03:47:e0:64:3c media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) status: active Other onboard NIC is pcn: pcn0@pci0:9:0: class=0x020000 card=0x20001014 chip=0x20001022 rev=0x36 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)' device = 'Am79C970/1/2/3/5/6 PCnet LANCE PCI Ethernet Controller' class = network subclass = ethernet I heard this card also might have some problems, but I'm not sure. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ganbold >-- >Regards, >Pyun YongHyeon