From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 20 15:50:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349D416A402 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:50:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from smtp-gw-cl-d.dmv.com (smtp-gw-cl-d.dmv.com [216.240.97.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A0213C45B for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com (mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com [216.240.97.39]) by smtp-gw-cl-d.dmv.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3KFo2p1038562 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:50:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from [216.240.97.46] (lanshark.dmv.com [216.240.97.46]) by mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l3KFo2PC099629 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:50:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) From: Sven Willenberger To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <1176911436.7416.8.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> References: <1176911436.7416.8.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:51:56 -0400 Message-Id: <1177084316.5457.5.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 216.240.97.42 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 216.240.97.39 Subject: Re: CARP and em0 timeout watchdog 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: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:50:04 -0000 On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:50 -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote: > I currently have a FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p3 SMP with dual intel PRO/1000PM > nics configured as follows: > > em0: flags=8943 mtu 1500 > options=b > inet 192.168.0.18 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > ether 00:30:48:8d:5c:0a > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) > status: active > em1: flags=8843 mtu 4096 > options=b > inet 10.10.0.18 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast 10.10.0.23 > ether 00:30:48:8d:5c:0b > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) > status: active > > the em0 interface connects to the LAN while the em1 interface is > connected to an identical box via CAT6 crossover cable (for > ggate/gmirror). > > Now, I have also configured a carp interface: > > carp0: flags=49 mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.0.20 netmask 0xffffffff > carp: MASTER vhid 1 advbase 1 advskew 0 > > There are twin boxes here and I am running Samba. The problem is that > with transfers across the carp IP (192.168.0.20) I end up with em0 > resetting after a watchdog timeout error. This occurs whether I transfer > files from a windows box using a share (samba) or via ftp. This problem > does *not* occur if I ftp to the 192.168.0.19 interface (non-virtual). I > suspected cabling at first so had all the cabling in question replaced > with fresh CAT6 to no avail. Several gigs of data can be transferred to > the real interface (em0) without any issue at all; a max of maybe 1 - 2 > Gig can be transferred connected to the carp'ed IP before the em0 reset. > Any ideas here? > > Sven > Having done more diagnostics I have found out it is not CARP related at all. It turns out that the same timeouts will happen when ftp'ing to the physical address IPs as well. There is also an odd situation here depending on which protocol I use. The two boxes are connected to a Dell Powerconnect 2616 gig switch with CAT6. If I scp files from the 192.168.0.18 to the 192.168.0.19 box I can transfer gigs worth without a hiccup (I used dd to create various sized testfiles from 32M to 1G in size and just scp testfile* to the other box). On the other hand, if I connect to 192.168.0.19 using ftp (either active or passive) where ftp is being run through inetd, the interface resets (watchdog) within seconds (a few MBs) of traffic. Enabling polling does nothing, nor does changing net.inet.tcp.{recv,send}space. Any ideas why I would be seeing such behavioral differences between scp and ftp? Sven