Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 04:48 +1000, Ian Smith wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Ryan Stone wrote: > > > No, defining EM_WATCHDOG as 10 * hz should mean that the watchdog > > expires after 10 seconds no matter what your kern.hz is. hz is set to > > the number of ticks in a second. > > Ok, one more p

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Ian Smith wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Ian Smith wrote: > > > > HZ=4000 ticks are 250ns, not 25ms. > > Up way too late .. that's 250us of course, thanks Ryan. > Even so, very good points Ian, thanks. Hmmm, wondering if this points to a design flaw in what I d

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Ian Smith wrote: > > HZ=4000 ticks are 250ns, not 25ms. Up way too late .. that's 250us of course, thanks Ryan. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send an

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Ryan Stone wrote: > No, defining EM_WATCHDOG as 10 * hz should mean that the watchdog > expires after 10 seconds no matter what your kern.hz is. hz is set to > the number of ticks in a second. Ok, one more probably wild punt .. Shtorm you say HZ=4000, giving: === And here

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Well, you can always try increasing it, but its unlikely that the problem is the constant, in the older style watchdog code this was set to 5 so I am already being lenient :) Jack On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Shtorm wrote: > Yes, I'm not a kernel hacker, but cat understand what C code says

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

No, defining EM_WATCHDOG as 10 * hz should mean that the watchdog expires after 10 seconds no matter what your kern.hz is. hz is set to the number of ticks in a second. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Yes, I'm not a kernel hacker, but cat understand what C code says, I see your point. It will take few days until I can get to server room, will try without ntpd. Also, I have kern.hz=4000 in loader.conf, as far as I understand tick length will be 25 ms and timeout for watchdog will be 10*25 ms = 2

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

OK, its just that something odd is going on since my testers are not seeing this happening, fishing for ideas Jack On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Ryan Stone wrote: > Hm, I see that you're using the ticks variable. To the best of my > knowledge, changing the current time should not cause

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Hm, I see that you're using the ticks variable. To the best of my knowledge, changing the current time should not cause ticks to change. A lot of things, like the callout wheel, would be pretty broken if that were happening. My knowledge of this stuff is several major versions out of date, thoug

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Shtorm wrote: > Yeah, saw this too, it was first boot for this install and I forgot to > run tzsetup during flash image build. > > As for the latest log, this box connected to internet via em0, ntpd just > says it have some peers to sync with after interface flap. > >

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

LOL, the way the watchdog code works these days it records the clock at key TX points and then compares that in the timer code, so if your system is dinking around with the time that could be the cause of this. Can you change the environment to guarantee a continuous time stream and then see what

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 23:58 +1000, Ian Smith wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Shtorm wrote: > > > > > Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0? > > > > > > Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to > > > have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help. > > > > > >

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Shtorm wrote: > > > Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0? > > > > Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to > > have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help. > > > > I would like to see the log messages from the watchdogs. > > Jack

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 09:22 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > Interesting, didn't know any vendor had combined PCH and 82574 on one board, > yes, they are > completely different, as you can see the one only supports MSI, its a client > NIC. > > I would agree with Mike, disable anything having to do with

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

LOL, figures. The poor FreeBSD engineer never gets the new toys :( I asked and my tester has actually had one of these, so if needed I imagine I can lay my hands on one. Jack On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 12:22 PM 7/7/2010, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> Interesting, didn't

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

At 12:22 PM 7/7/2010, Jack Vogel wrote: Interesting, didn't know any vendor had combined PCH and 82574 on one board, yes, they are completely different, as you can see the one only supports MSI, its a client NIC. Its one of the lesser known vendors, Intel ;-) Its a S3420GPLC

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Interesting, didn't know any vendor had combined PCH and 82574 on one board, yes, they are completely different, as you can see the one only supports MSI, its a client NIC. I would agree with Mike, disable anything having to do with IPMI if it exists and see if that helps. Also you did not comment

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

At 06:03 AM 7/7/2010, Shtorm wrote: > Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0? > > Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to > have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help. > > I would like to see the log messages from the watchdogs. > Jack Yes, em0 - plain untag

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

> Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0? > > Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to > have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help. > > I would like to see the log messages from the watchdogs. > Jack Yes, em0 - plain untagged traffic to border router, em1 -

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0? Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help. I would like to see the log messages from the watchdogs. Jack On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Shtorm wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:02 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > Cleaner in the Makefile, let me know how it goes. > > Jack > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Yuriy A. Korobko > wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 11:11 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > > > Are you defining 'EM_MULTIQUEUE', its off by defau

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Cleaner in the Makefile, let me know how it goes. Jack On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Yuriy A. Korobko wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 11:11 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > > Are you defining 'EM_MULTIQUEUE', its off by default and needs to be > > defined somewhere by you. > > > > You will only se

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 11:11 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > Are you defining 'EM_MULTIQUEUE', its off by default and needs to be > defined somewhere by you. > > You will only see the two queues used if you have two different connections > operating at once. > > Jack > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:4

Re: Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller

Are you defining 'EM_MULTIQUEUE', its off by default and needs to be defined somewhere by you. You will only see the two queues used if you have two different connections operating at once. Jack On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Shtorm wrote: > I just got Supermicro SuperServer 5016I-MRF serve