Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:06:16 -0800 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Mars G Miro" <spry@anarchy.in.the.ph> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: igb on a Nehalem system, buildworld stats Message-ID: <2a41acea0901081106k5dbaeef8s788d2460820c75cd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f12f408a0901081050p1a8154c5h19035f399944b3fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <f12f408a0901080616t78dded81l979a4ec06de7739f@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea0901080844y1c2ad632t12aeadfbe9f34d0a@mail.gmail.com> <f12f408a0901081019x2ea4e83i47851fa3ed2a0ae4@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea0901081033h7db7a1aej8399baf5dcbd270f@mail.gmail.com> <f12f408a0901081050p1a8154c5h19035f399944b3fc@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So it wasn't identified during install but was in the kernel you built afterward, is that what you're saying? Even if that's true I don't think its relevant to the failure. I have made a couple queries internally, there are a lot of variations on Nehalem systems, at least one other engineer in my group had an encounter with one like yours, I have two managers looking for me, hopefully I can find one. Jack On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Mars G Miro <spry@anarchy.in.the.ph> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, I am at Intel you know, and even we don't seem to have any systems > > with > > 82576 down in my group here. The way link works I can be about 99.9% sure > > in saying its not the driver. Its preproduction so there are lots of > > possibilities, > > and the biggest problem is its going to be difficult to help when I don't > > have any > > such hardware :( > > > > I've heard from the 1G product team that they have seen EEPROM mismatches > > on systems that will result in things not working in funny ways. > > > Jahh, I've seen those but not w/ Intel NICs. I believe it was from > Broadcom on some IBM x3455? (IIRC) and it was indeed quite amusing ;-) > > > > > > If you have a back to back connection to another NIC on Port 0, no > switch, > > does > > it still autoneg to 100? > > > > I will have do that tomorrow as I am @home now ;-) > > btw, another data point, during sysinstall, we encountered: > > <unknown network interface type> on both the igbs. > > Thanks. > > > Jack > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Mars G Miro <spry@anarchy.in.the.ph> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I have not seen a problem like this ever, what is the link partner > >> > of each NIC and if you switch the ports what happens? > >> > > >> > >> Hi Jack, > >> > >> They're connected to a GigE switch. It was just one w/ the first > >> NIC, but having seen that it only connects at 100baseTX, I wired the > >> 2nd and saw that it can now do 1000baseTX. Unfortunately w/ problems > >> as it can 'see' some machines but unable to see others (in the same > >> physical network segment). I've changed cables, and plugged them in > >> different ports in the switch but still the same behavior. > >> > >> IIRC, this is the first time I had igb problems and only on this > >> box. I believe I encountered igb NICs in the newer HP DL380/385 but > >> those work fine. > >> > >> btw, this is a Supermicro Intel Engineering sample box (major > >> vendors don't have Nehalems in the market yet) so there prolly are > >> hardware/driver bugs lurking? I dunno. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > We have Nehalem's in the validation lab but I have not had an > >> > excuse to install on one so far, I guess now I do :) > >> > > >> > Jack > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Mars G Miro <spry@anarchy.in.the.ph> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi guys, > >> >> > >> >> I just got on my hands today a NEHALEM system: > >> >> > >> >> 2 x 5560 Nehalem CPU (2.8GHz, 8MB cache memory, 6.4GT/sec [QPI]) > >> >> 12GB 1333Mhz DDR3 Memory > >> >> 1 x 500GB SATA HDD > >> >> > >> >> FreeBSD 7.1-RELEASE/amd64 install fine, however I seemed to be > >> >> having problems w/ its built-in Intel NICs: > >> >> > >> >> igb0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu > >> >> 1500 > >> >> > >> >> options=19b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4> > >> >> ether 00:30:48:c5:db:e2 > >> >> inet6 fe80::230:48ff:fec5:dbe2%igb0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > >> >> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) > >> >> status: active > >> >> igb1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu > >> >> 1500 > >> >> > >> >> options=19b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4> > >> >> ether 00:30:48:c5:db:e3 > >> >> inet6 fe80::230:48ff:fec5:dbe3%igb1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 > >> >> inet 172.17.32.32 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 172.17.255.255 > >> >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX <full-duplex>) > >> >> status: active > >> >> > >> >> The first NIC would always want 100baseTX no matter how I'd ifconfig > >> >> down/up it, so I just had to use the 2nd NIC. Unfortunately, this too > >> >> is having problems. Like being unable to 'see' some machines on the > >> >> same network segment. Some other machines are accessible. And yes > I've > >> >> double-checked the network stuff (cables, switch, IP settings) and my > >> >> conclusion is b0rky NICs. > >> >> > >> >> pciconf -lvc: > >> >> igb0@pci0:1:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x10c915d9 > chip=0x10c98086 > >> >> rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 > >> >> vendor = 'Intel Corporation' > >> >> class = network > >> >> subclass = ethernet > >> >> cap 01[40] = powerspec 3 supports D0 D3 current D0 > >> >> cap 05[50] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit, vector masks > >> >> cap 11[70] = MSI-X supports 10 messages in map 0x1c enabled > >> >> cap 10[a0] = PCI-Express 2 endpoint > >> >> igb1@pci0:1:0:1: class=0x020000 card=0x10c915d9 > chip=0x10c98086 > >> >> rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 > >> >> vendor = 'Intel Corporation' > >> >> class = network > >> >> subclass = ethernet > >> >> cap 01[40] = powerspec 3 supports D0 D3 current D0 > >> >> cap 05[50] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit, vector masks > >> >> cap 11[70] = MSI-X supports 10 messages in map 0x1c enabled > >> >> cap 10[a0] = PCI-Express 2 endpoint > >> >> > >> >> So anyone else having igb problems? I'm downloading 200812-CURRENT > now > >> >> (is tehre gonna be a 200901-CURRENT ISO soon? :-p), I'd like to try > >> >> that, but checking cvs seem only a handful of changes. > >> >> > >> >> Also I did some buildworlds: > >> >> make -j8 buildworld > >> >> 2846.900u 2266.188s 15:50.43 537.9% 6375+2082k 10084+7937io > >> >> 1482pf+0w > >> >> make -j16 buildworld > >> >> 3518.254u 2175.593s 14:23.29 659.5% 6656+2147k 26165+8546io > >> >> 4300pf+0w > >> >> make -j32 buildworld > >> >> 3582.897u 4437.710s 18:03.88 739.9% 6528+2125k 5725+7930io > >> >> 1555pf+0w > >> >> > >> >> Verbose dmesg: http://pastebin.com/f5f799561 > >> >> > >> >> Thanks! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> cheers > >> >> mars > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > >> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > >> >> "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> cheers > >> mars > > > > > > > > -- > cheers > mars >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0901081106k5dbaeef8s788d2460820c75cd>