Hi, I'm not sure but reading the advisory that just came out today
sounds like it could have something to do with your mbuf issues.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=
FreeBSD-SA-10:07.mbuf
Hi Maxim,
I experienced the same issue recently on 8-STABLE branch and it seems
it has been fixed since 8.1-RC2 and above. I couldn't track down the
root cause in the code nor could I find a commit that seems to be the
obvious fix.
Thanks,
~ Ali
2010/2/15 Maxim Sobolev :
> Hi,
>
> Our company ha
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>>
>> Can it be related to this issue somehow?
>>
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-August/011013.html
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-August/010740.html
>>
>> It was
I've dug around in the source repo... it appears the new code is just
shy of being MFC'd. Any known caveats with the new code or is it by
all accounts good to go?
I'm going to try testing it in 8.0. Thanks
Charles Owens
Great Bay Software, Inc.
Charles Owens wrote:
> Hello Jack,
>
> We're
Hello Jack,
We're seeing iffy behavior with igb on FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE on a new
Intel server box (based on their S5520UR motherboard). So far we've
seen only oddness with link-state (it wants to always say "active", with
no cable plugged in, unless we do an ifconfig up/down/up), but I'm
concerned
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:43:20PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> This thread is confusing, first he says its an igb problem, then you offer
> an em patch :)
>
> I have an important rev of igb that I am about ready to release, anyone that
> wishes to
> test against a problem they have would be welcome
Jack Vogel wrote:
This thread is confusing, first he says its an igb problem, then you
offer an em patch :)
I suspect it could be patch for the kern/140326.
-Maxim
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
This thread is confusing, first he says its an igb problem, then you offer
an em patch :)
I have an important rev of igb that I am about ready to release, anyone that
wishes to
test against a problem they have would be welcome to have early access, just
let me
know.
I am not sure about this ich10
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 05:05:16PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Indeed, it looks like igb(4) issue. Replacing the card with the
> desktop-grade em(4)-supported card has fixed the problem for us. The
> system has been happily pushing 110mbps worth of RTP traffic and 2000
> concurrent
Folks,
Indeed, it looks like igb(4) issue. Replacing the card with the
desktop-grade em(4)-supported card has fixed the problem for us. The
system has been happily pushing 110mbps worth of RTP traffic and 2000
concurrent calls without any problems for two days now.
e...@pci0:7:0:0: class=0x0
[Trimmed Cc: list]
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:11:18AM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> OK, here is some new data that I think rules out any issues with the
> applications. Following Alfred's suggestion I have made a script to run
> every second and output some system statistics:
>
> date
> netstat
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:11:18AM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> OK, here is some new data that I think rules out any issues with the
> applications. Following Alfred's suggestion I have made a script to run
> every second and output some system statistics:
>
> date
> netstat -m
> vmstat -i
> ps
OK, here is some new data that I think rules out any issues with the
applications. Following Alfred's suggestion I have made a script to run
every second and output some system statistics:
date
netstat -m
vmstat -i
ps -axl
pstat -T
vmstat -z
sysctl -a
The problem had hit us again today several
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Can it be related to this issue somehow?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-August/011013.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-August/010740.html
It was tested on FreeBSD 8 and high UDP traffic on igb interfaces emits
message
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Sergey Babkin wrote:
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi,
Our company have a FreeBSD based product that consists of the numerous
interconnected processes and it does some high-PPS UDP processing
(30-50K PPS is not uncommon). We are seeing some strange periodic
failures under the load
Sergey Babkin wrote:
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi,
Our company have a FreeBSD based product that consists of the numerous
interconnected processes and it does some high-PPS UDP processing
(30-50K PPS is not uncommon). We are seeing some strange periodic
failures under the load in several such system
Can you tell me more about the system with the problem, does it have both em
and igb driven
interfaces?
Jack
2010/2/15 Maxim Sobolev
> Hi,
>
> Our company have a FreeBSD based product that consists of the numerous
> interconnected processes and it does some high-PPS UDP processing (30-50K
> PP
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Our company have a FreeBSD based product that consists of the numerous
> interconnected processes and it does some high-PPS UDP processing
> (30-50K PPS is not uncommon). We are seeing some strange periodic
> failures under the load in several such systems, which
Hi,
Our company have a FreeBSD based product that consists of the numerous
interconnected processes and it does some high-PPS UDP processing
(30-50K PPS is not uncommon). We are seeing some strange periodic
failures under the load in several such systems, which usually evidences
itself in IPC
19 matches
Mail list logo
