On Thursday 03 November 2005 12:34, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:27:26PM +, Chris Howells wrote:
> C> em0, Sean, I just recieved an RX overrun interrupt, Take it easy on me!
> C>
> C>
> C> I had to 'ifconfig em0 down; ifconfig em0 up' on the console to get it
> to work C> a
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:27:26PM +, Chris Howells wrote:
C> em0, Sean, I just recieved an RX overrun interrupt, Take it easy on me!
C>
C>
C> I had to 'ifconfig em0 down; ifconfig em0 up' on the console to get it to
work
C> again.
Can you show your card in 'pciconf -lv' output?
--
Totus
On Thursday 20 October 2005 14:02, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
> I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
>
> Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
> Do you see a lot of errors in 'netstat -i'
# uname -a
FreeBSD gateway. 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #1: Sun Oct 23 08:13:59 CST
2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/jindui i386
There is a lot errors
without patch
gateway# netstat -Iem0 1
input (em0) output
packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls
28869 275 19844819 28640 0 20947729 0
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
I don't think so. Do you encounter a lot if input errors on 4.11?
I get the wedgeing problem on a 4.11-STABLE, I have to 'ifconfig down;
ifconfig up' to get it to communicate again. The system is:
-bash-2.05b$ uname -a
FreeBSD elrond.devrandom.org.uk 4.11-STABLE FreeBS
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:55:01PM +0800, Mao Shou Yan wrote:
M> NO, I didn't encounter a lot if input errors on 4.11.
M> But I met a lot if input errors on 5.4. And I don't know why?
M> Is this for so many CSWs( systat -vmstat 1) or any other reason?
M> BTW, New patch loops in em_intr() like linux
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:55:01PM +0800, Mao Shou Yan wrote:
M> NO, I didn't encounter a lot if input errors on 4.11.
M> But I met a lot if input errors on 5.4. And I don't know why?
M> Is this for so many CSWs( systat -vmstat 1) or any other reason?
M> BTW, New patch loops in em_intr() like linux
yet?
David.Mao
-Original Message-
From: Gleb Smirnoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2005年10月25日 14:50
To: Mao Shou Yan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: em(4) patch for test
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:41:28AM +0800, Mao Shou Yan wrote:
M> Can we patch it against 4.11?
M> If not, can
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:41:28AM +0800, Mao Shou Yan wrote:
M> Can we patch it against 4.11?
M> If not, can we patch the em_intr() to 4.11?
M> Is this patch useful to 4.11?
I don't think so. Do you encounter a lot if input errors on 4.11?
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
___
Can we patch it against 4.11?
If not, can we patch the em_intr() to 4.11?
Is this patch useful to 4.11?
Thanks!
David.Mao
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gleb Smirnoff
Sent: 2005年10月20日 22:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: em(4) patch
Çäðàâñòâóéòå
Before corrections productivity did not test,
but under loading the link is down.
After has added "media" and "mediaopt" in rc.conf
for some days the link has not fallen never,
but whether there were loadings these days I know.
After a patch, copied approximately 23 Gb data
in four st
I just have to point out that below I made a statement that proved I
should of gone to bed earlier instead of doing benchmarks :). The 901
http States and ssh state have nothing to do with each other as there on
different pf rules.
Mike
Michael VInce wrote:
I did watch the gateway (B) pf sta
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Michael VInce wrote:
M> Here is my second round of my non scientific benchmarking and tests, I
M> hope this is useful.
M> I been having fun benchmarking these machines but I am starting to get
M> sick of it as well :) but I find it important to know that
Here is my second round of my non scientific benchmarking and tests, I
hope this is useful.
I been having fun benchmarking these machines but I am starting to get
sick of it as well :) but I find it important to know that things are
going to work right when they are launched to do their real wor
Michael,
big thanks for a very detailed report!
On your next test round, can you please also keep an eye on
the CPU load. Is it increased measurably by the patch or not.
Thanks again!
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
___
freebsd
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Colleagues,
since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
Do you see a lot of errors in 'netstat -i' output? Does these errors
inc
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:44:57AM +0400 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> And for 5-th version will not be?
http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/if_em.c.1129840898.diff
--
martin hudec
* 421 907 303 393
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* http://www.aeternal.net
"Nothing travels fa
And for 5-th version will not be?
--
С уважением,
GreenX
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 06:02:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Colleagues,
T>
T> since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
T> I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
T>
T> Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
T> Do you se
Colleagues,
since the if_em problem was taken as a late showstopper for 6.0-RELEASE,
I am asking you to help with testing of the fixes made in HEAD.
Does your em(4) interface wedge for some time?
Do you see a lot of errors in 'netstat -i' output? Does these errors
increase not monotonou
20 matches
Mail list logo
