From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 20 16:23:45 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 9E98216A401 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com (smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com [216.240.97.41]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F0A13C44C for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from mail-gw-cl-a.dmv.com (mail-gw-cl-a.dmv.com [216.240.97.38]) by smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3KGNh47040074; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:23:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from [216.240.97.46] (lanshark.dmv.com [216.240.97.46]) by mail-gw-cl-a.dmv.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l3KGNhuk087782; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:23:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) From: Sven Willenberger To: Jeremy Chadwick In-Reply-To: <20070420160431.GA17356@icarus.home.lan> References: <1176911436.7416.8.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <1177084316.5457.5.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20070420160431.GA17356@icarus.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 -0400 Message-Id: <1177086339.5457.13.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 216.240.97.38 Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org 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 16:23:45 -0000 On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:04 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:51:56AM -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote: > > 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? > > You'll get a much higher throughput rate with FTP than you will with > SSH, simply because encryption overhead is quite high (even with the > Blowfish cipher). With a very fast processor and on a gigE network > you'll probably see 8-9MByte/sec via SSH while 60-70MByte/sec via FTP. > That's the only difference I can think of. > > The watchdog resets I can't explain; Jack Vogel should be able to assist > with that. But it sounds like the resets only happen under very high > throughput conditions (which is why you'd see it with FTP but not SSH). > I guess it is possible that the traffic from ftp (or smb) is overloading the interface; fwiw, if I increase the {recv,send}space to 131072 I can acheive 32MB+/s using scp (and ftp shows similar values). The real question is how to avoid these watchdog timeouts during heavy traffic; the whole point here was to replace windows-based fileshare servers with FreeBSD for the local network but at the moment it is proving ineffectual as any samba file transfers stall (much like ftp). I see no other error messages in the logfiles other than the watchdog timeouts plus interface down/up messages. Sven