Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:59:50 -0800 (PST) From: "B. Scott Michel" <scottm@CS.UCLA.EDU> To: Glendon Gross <gross@clones.com> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Joe Abley <jabley@patho.gen.nz>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Odd TCP glitches in new currents Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912251256440.6878-100000@mordred.cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9912240941570.7749-100000@dell.orlybeauty.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
We aren't doing mcast at this time. If there's anyone from Nortel lurking behind this list, UCLA CS is pretty close to throwing out the Accelars due to a lack of tech support response. No, UCLA CS is not capable of doing department-wide mcast because of a set of peculiar bugs in the Accelar's code. It will only do DVMRP snooping on a limited number of mcast groups (~400 or so). What we actually see is 3x that number. And so we're waiting for some upgraded code that Nortel/Bay has claimed is coming for the better part of a year now. -scooter On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, Glendon Gross wrote: > > Are you sure that this is a problem with the local interface dropping > packets, or could it just be a multicast router > that is suppressing packets? I have noticed with my new FreeBSD box > running mrouted, exceptionally good routing performance. But my linux > boxes are more consistent in their response. So I concluded that > my upstream neighbors are supressing the broadcasts as a feature of the > multicast routing protocol. I don't think it's a problem with my local > interface, just a feature of the DVMRP protocol. > > Can anyone recommend a good reference on this? I've been reading RFC-1075 > and don't really understand it. --Glen Gross > > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, B. Scott Michel wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 1999 at 11:37:42AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > I had a Netgear FS509 switch here that would eat packets transmitted > > > through the GigE port under certain conditions. Netgear shipped me > > > a new one, and I've been happy with it, until the same problem started > > > happening again this morning. > > > > There's some oddities in the 3.3 and 3.4 kernels as well -- I've actually > > nailed down the plexicity and speed on both the Accellar and my humble PC, > > and yet, I'm looking at weird TCP lockups from time to time. > > > > Mostly seems to be related to NFSv3, but will also happen when doing > > cvsup. There's no magic number of how many bytes are queued waiting to go > > out the interface. And it seems to be limited to specific connections, > > i.e. an NFS TCP connection can be jammed and yet I can be happily talking > > to cvsup3 doing an update. > > > > The interface in question is a NetGear: > > > > pn0: <82c169 PNIC 10/100BaseTX> rev 0x20 int a irq 11 on pci0.9.0 > > > > What is odd is that the output error metric from netstat -in monotonically > > increases. > > > > Yes, I could post my configuration, etc., and I could go back to running > > -current, but I have a PhD to make progress on. And I'm willing to wait to > > try out the consolidated 2x040/PNIC driver when 4.0 finally rolls out. > > > > > > -scooter > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > > > Scott Michel | No research ideal ever survives UCLA Computer Science | contact with implementation. PhD Graduate Student | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9912251256440.6878-100000>