Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:33:15 -0800 From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tx v2 error 0x6204<UNDERFLOW> - is this a new feature? Message-ID: <20110111183315.GA6278@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <df34bd0d60eeff64cbb5c8a52147ede8.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> References: <f765ac1cf5d77527d21ad2a83ee98d8c.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <AANLkTi=CvNitBjG%2Br08NCTp_S=BwR7LZJ%2BeJuTkHAxVz@mail.gmail.com> <c91aeb7fe060c9d3548d120841d488fe.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <AANLkTinZnkpPe2Xyh-tEJU0ZKJ%2BWjXprJFgVXj0XdPJs@mail.gmail.com> <30661ab452bce4de56f3e80f8682222a.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <df34bd0d60eeff64cbb5c8a52147ede8.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:14:49AM -0800, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: > > On Tue, January 11, 2011 1:01 am, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: > > > > > On Tue, January 11, 2011 12:42 am, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:28 AM, <fbsdmail@dnswatch.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Greetings Pyun YongHyeon, and thank you for your reply. > >>> On Mon, January 10, 2011 11:40 pm, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ?<fbsdmail@dnswatch.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>> I have been receiving these messages on a recent 8.1/AMD64 > >>>>> install. src/ports && world/kern about a week ago. Here is a block > >>>>> from the most recent output: nfe0: tx v2 error 0x6204<UNDERFLOW> > >>>>> nfe0: tx v2 > >>>>> error 0x6204<UNDERFLOW> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> nfe0: tx v2 error 0x6204<UNDERFLOW> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It appears to only occur when transmitting largish amounts of > >>>>> data across an NFS mount. I'm not sure where the MIN-threshold > >>>>> lies. But appears to be >=1.5Mb. This fresh 8.1/AMD64 is part of a > >>>>> largish server farm comprised of 7+ - 8.0 i386 servers. This one > >>>>> is the only AMD64. It > >>>>> is also the only AMD64. I experience this when mounting an > >>>>> 8.0/i386 > >>>>> server from this 8.1/AMD64. The i386 also has mounts on this > >>>>> 8.1/AMD64. > >>>>> relevant info: ### 8.0/i386 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #0: > >>>>> /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/UDNS01 ?i386 > >>>>> Tyan 2-CPU MB > >>>>> 2 NIC's: fxp0 (only one in use) > >>>>> ### 8.1/AMD64 > >>>>> FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p2 #0: /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/XII amd64 > >>>>> MSI K9N4 Ultra > >>>>> CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ (3511.34-MHz > >>>>> K8-class > >>>>> CPU) > >>>>> 1 NIC nfe0 > >>>>> ### common to both: > >>>>> rc.conf nfs_client_enable="YES" nfs_reserved_port_only="YES" > >>>>> nfs_server_enable="YES" > >>>>> > >>>>> NIC's on both boards are 10/100's @100mbps > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Can anyone provide any insight as to why I should be receiving > >>>>> these messages on a fresh 8.1/amd64 install. Is 8.1 INcompatible > >>>>> with earlier versions? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No, I guess you're seeing one of unresolved nfe(4) issues. > >>>> By chance, are you using forced media configuration instead of > >>>> auto-negotiation? Posting both dmesg and "ifconfig nfe0" output > >>>> would be useful. > >>> > >>> As dmesg(8) goes, I have no dmesg.boot on either box, and bouncing > >>> them is not an immediate option. > >>> > >>> ifconfig nfe0 (the 8.1/amd64) follows: # ifconfig nfe0 nfe0: > >>> flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 > >>> options=8010b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,TSO4,LINKSTATE> ether > >>> 00:19:db:22:74:87 > >>> inet XXX.XXX.XXX.26 netmask 0xffffffe0 broadcast XXX.XXX.XXX.31 inet6 > >>> fe80::219:dbff:fe22:7487%nfe0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > >>> nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV> media: Ethernet autoselect > >>> (100baseTX <half-duplex>) > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Does the link partner also agree on the resolved duplex(half-duplex)? > >> It's not common to see half-duplex in these days. > >> Please make sure link partner is also using auto-negotiation. > >> > >> > > > > I thought that odd, as well. Both kerns have as nearly the same options > > as is possible. Because the 8.1/amd64 is intended as a replacement for the > > 8.0/i386. They're both on the same switch. > > OK. Sorry, it just occurred to me that they /aren't/ both 10/100's > The 8.1/amd64 (nfe0) is 10/100/1000, which might account for the half-dup. > Just thought I'd mention it - but I'm sure you already discovered that :P > I don't know any auto-negotiation issues of ciphy(4) so please verify whether the switch sees the same resolved speed/duplex. If you manually configured switch port to use 100Mbps/full-duplex it would create problems since resolved duplex for the parallel detection is normally half-duplex. This will cause duplex mismatch and you will see lots of unexpected problems. If both parties use the same forced media configuration in 10/100Mbps mode it would work but nfe(4) has one unresolved issue for that case(mainly due to lack of documentation). Without auto-negotiation, some nfe(4) controllers do not work correctly. nfe(4) also supports hardware MAC counters for supported controllers and I think your controller supports that. See what counters you have with "sysctl dev.nfe.0.stats".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110111183315.GA6278>