On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:35:45 -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 20:55 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
(...) >> > Feb 8 19:45:40 corn kernel: [1987612.981170] ethfast: >> > Detected Tx Unit Hang: >> >> (...) >> >> > Feb 8 19:45:49 corn kernel: [1987622.027816] NETDEV >> > WATCHDOG: ethfast: transmit timed out Feb 8 19:45:52 corn >> > kernel: [1987624.923313] ethfast: Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full >> > Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX >> >> By reading the logs, I can point you to these two bugs: >> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=518182 >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657689 > Thank you. I do not have > 4g RAM, but my recent network upgrades took > me from 100Mb/s to 1000Mb/s, so the load has definitely gone up. There > were problems before, which may or may not have the same cause. Well, another user report the same error with 2 GiB of RAM (message #60), it can be also related to your problem. Anyway, when this happens, can you see a kernel trace/oops at your "/var/log/syslog"? >> As you are using lenny, > Yes. >> I would try with an updated kernel (2.6.32) from backports or better >> yet, take this as an opportunity to upgrade to Squeeze or another >> supported version :-) > I want to upgrade, but need to test it and fix my mail first... You can try to load a LiveCD with an updated kernel and check if the network hang is also reproducible from there. >> I see. Anyway, although the laptop is not at its bests, the logs are >> concerning the linux box (the ethernet driver "hangs"). And one more >> thing... "ethfast" looks like a 10/100 driver though it says "link up >> 1000 Mbps". What kernel modules are you loading for both cards? > lsmod shows e100 and e1000e. I don't think I've done any customization > related to these modules. Here are some highlights from startup: > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.104915] e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network > Driver - 0.3.3.3-k2 > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.105673] e1000e: Copyright (c) 1999-2008 > Intel Corporation. > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.105759] ACPI: PCI Interrupt > 0000:02:00.0[A] -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.106703] PCI: Setting latency timer of > device 0000:02:00.0 to 64 > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.205678] No dock devices found. > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.228257] eth0: (PCI Express:2.5GB/s:Width > x1) 00:13:20:b7:23:53 > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.229019] eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network > Connection > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.229807] eth0: MAC: 2, PHY: 2, PBA No: > ffffff-0ff (...) > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.306212] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network > Driver, 3.5.23-k4-NAPI > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.339515] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2006 > Intel Corporation > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.383510] ACPI: PCI Interrupt > 0000:05:01.0[A] -> GSI 22 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 > Jan 17 11:54:13 corn kernel: [ 2.431297] e100: eth1: e100_probe: addr > 0x90028000, irq 22, MAC addr 00:... Mmmm, it loads e1000e and e100 for the cards, which I think it's fine. I wonder what's the source for the above "ethfast" :-? > Thank you so much for the diagnosis; the network problems have been > driving me nuts, but the server is the last place I thought would be > responsible. Perhaps this also has something to do with fact that > throughput has topped out at 300Mb/s, and that imposes a high CPU load > on the laptop. Another thing you can try is using a different method for doing the transfers, such as FTP or SSH. Samba can be cpu resource intensive and I've also been in situations where transferring big amounts of data (>30 GiB) over a samba share from windows clients hung at the middle of the transfer. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jhgimm$loq$6...@dough.gmane.org
