From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 10 20:37:30 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 13A2116A4CE; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:37:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BDE43D46; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:37:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E1083A733; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:37:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0976B3A70D; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:37:29 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:37:28 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040810173211.V776@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: em driver worse then fxp driver ... why? 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: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:37:30 -0000 I have 5 servers sitting on a Linksys 10/100 switch ... 4 of the 5 are running fxp0 ethernet, while the 5th is running em ... and the 5th performs atrociously: neptune# netstat -ni | head Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll em0 1500 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 10858513 I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs climbs, half-duplex, Collisions climb ... the fxp devices are all running at full-duplex, and perform quite well: pluto# netstat -ni | head Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll fxp0 1500 00:03:47:bd:67:66 105856025 0 97330263 2 0 jupiter# netstat -ni | head Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll fxp0 1500 00:03:47:30:a7:1b 28832141 0 29437148 0 0 mars# netstat -ni | head Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll fxp0 1500 00:e0:81:21:d7:f6 34195201 0 29871571 0 0 venus# netstat -ni | head Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll fxp0 1500 00:e0:81:29:56:5b 95579278 1 87014732 1 0 Originally, it was explained that unmanaged switches tended to be problematic, but I'd expect some sort of uniformity in problems, but 'just the server with the em device' ... So, is there a bug in the em device driver that doesn't exist on the fxp0 devices? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664