On 7/12/2011 3:03 PM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
>
> I have similar problems on a couple of 7.3 boxes with latest driver form
> -CURRENT.
> I just wanted to know if your 7 boxes work fine so I look for cause else
> where.
Yes, all has been working quite well for me to date.
em1@pci0:11:0:0:c
I have similar problems on a couple of 7.3 boxes with latest driver form
-CURRENT.
I just wanted to know if your 7 boxes work fine so I look for cause else where.
On 2/7/2011 3:23 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
So far so good. I would often get a hang on the level zero dumps to my
backup server Sunda
On 7/12/2011 2:54 PM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> tanx.
>
> out of curiosity, can some one pls. explain this?
>
> In if_em.c, function em_start_locked, there is:
>
> if (txr->tx_avail <= EM_TX_CLEANUP_THRESHOLD)
> em_txeof(txr);
>
> inside while loop. While is if_igb.c, function igb_s
tanx.
out of curiosity, can some one pls. explain this?
In if_em.c, function em_start_locked, there is:
if (txr->tx_avail <= EM_TX_CLEANUP_THRESHOLD)
em_txeof(txr);
inside while loop. While is if_igb.c, function igb_start_locked,
a similar code it is out of while loop:
if
On 7/6/2011 4:29 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> Can you pls. share the patch for freebsd 7?
Its in the tree.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/e1000/
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net
Providing Internet
Can you pls. share the patch for freebsd 7?
On 2/7/2011 3:23 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
So far so good. I would often get a hang on the level zero dumps to my
backup server Sunday AM, and it made it through! So a good sign, but
not a definitive sign.
I have a PCIe em card that has this chipset as
So far so good. I would often get a hang on the level zero dumps to my
backup server Sunday AM, and it made it through! So a good sign, but
not a definitive sign.
I have a PCIe em card that has this chipset as well and was showing the
same sort of problem in a customer's RELENG_7 box. I will s
On 2/4/2011 1:09 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> Any more data on this problem or do we have to wait a while?
On my RELENG_8 production box, so far so good. It usually would hang on
weekend runs, so tomorrow would be a good sign, but not a proof that its
fixed as it has on occasion survived a few weeks
meh, patience is not one of my character traits. :-)
Sean
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 10:12 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Was curious too, but being more patient than you :)
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Sean Bruno
> wrote:
> Any more data on this problem or do we have to wa
Was curious too, but being more patient than you :)
Jack
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> Any more data on this problem or do we have to wait a while?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 10:28 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > On 2/2/2011 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > > So h
Any more data on this problem or do we have to wait a while?
Sean
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 10:28 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > So has everyone that wanted to get something testing been able to do so?
>
> I have been testing in the back and will deploy to
On 2/2/2011 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> So has everyone that wanted to get something testing been able to do so?
I have been testing in the back and will deploy to my production box
this afternoon. As I am not able to reproduce it easily, it will be a
bit before I can say the issue is gone. J
So has everyone that wanted to get something testing been able to do so?
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 5:03 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:43 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >> To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on
To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head, with my
changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance to
build
this, but it should work. I will check back in the later evening.
Any blatant problems Sean, feel free to fix them :)
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 20
On 2/1/2011 5:03 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:43 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head,
>> with my
>> changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance
>> to build
>> this, but it should work. I will ch
On 2/1/2011 8:44 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> % md5 if_em.c
> MD5 (if_em.c) = 0f2d48c7734496c2262f468cd1ab9117
Sorry, thats
MD5 (if_em.c) = 9cede4ab0d833e0f97172ed715e2b4e3
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net
Providing I
On 2/1/2011 7:56 PM, Chris Peiffer wrote:
>
> Did this get sent to the list? I didn't get this quoted message and I
> can't find it in the archives.
>
> If someone could post the current revision of if_em.c that would be
> great; we are also very eager to test.
>
Strange, it seems to be eaten
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:51:37PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 4:43 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head, with my
> > changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance to
> > build
> > this, but it should work.
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:51 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 4:43 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head, with my
> > changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance to
> > build
> > this, but it should work. I will
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:43 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head,
> with my
> changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance
> to build
> this, but it should work. I will check back in the later evening.
>
> Any blatan
On 2/1/2011 4:43 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> To those who are going to test, here is the if_em.c, based on head, with my
> changes, I have to leave for the afternoon, and have not had a chance to
> build
> this, but it should work. I will check back in the later evening.
>
> Any blatant problems Sean,
On 2/1/2011 4:17 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> But you aren't defining EM_MULTIQUEUE are you? (its not on by default)
Nope. Everything is the default wrt to the em driver. Nothing odd in
loader.conf
0(backup3)% grep -v ^# /boot/loader.conf
ahci_load="YES"
siis_load="YES"
if_em_load="YES"
coretemp_load=
But you aren't defining EM_MULTIQUEUE are you? (its not on by default)
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 3:55 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > Mike, just to remind me, are you running these 82574 adapters with MSIX ?
>
> Yes. Board is an Intel MB (S3420GPX). 8G RAM
On 2/1/2011 3:55 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Mike, just to remind me, are you running these 82574 adapters with MSIX ?
Yes. Board is an Intel MB (S3420GPX). 8G RAM, AMD64. Kernel from a few
days ago
0(backup3)# vmstat -i | grep em1
irq257: em1:rx 0 113712958159
irq258: em1:tx 0
Mike, just to remind me, are you running these 82574 adapters with MSIX ?
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Looks good, except I don't like code #if 0'd out, I'll make an if_em.c to
> try and
> send it shortly.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sean Brun
Looks good, except I don't like code #if 0'd out, I'll make an if_em.c to
try and
send it shortly.
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:05 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean,
> > thank
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:05 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean,
> thanks.
> Mike, you want to test this ?
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Sean Bruno
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 08:10 -0800, Mik
On 2/1/2011 3:05 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean,
> thanks.
> Mike, you want to test this ?
Sure, I am feeling lucky ;-) If someone generates the appropriate em
diffs for me, I will apply on the box that sees this issue the most.
At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean,
thanks.
Mike, you want to test this ?
Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 08:10 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > On 1/23/2011 10:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > > On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM,
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 08:10 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 1/23/2011 10:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM, Jan Koum wrote:
> > One other thing I noticed is that when the nic is in its hung state, the
> > WOL option is gone ?
> >
> > e.g
> >
> > em1: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
>
On 1/23/2011 10:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM, Jan Koum wrote:
> One other thing I noticed is that when the nic is in its hung state, the
> WOL option is gone ?
>
> e.g
>
> em1: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
> options=19b
> ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4
>
> vs
>
>
>
On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM, Jan Koum wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mike and Jack,
>
> sadly the problem is not gone for us either. here is what we know so far:
Same here. There was a new BIOS from Intel for our motherboard (INTEL
S3420GPX), but had another hang last night. Debug below. I will try the
newer dri
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 12/24/2010 5:44 PM, Jan Koum wrote:
> > hi Ivan and Mike,
> >
> > wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to
> this
> > bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
> > already disabled.
On 11/01/2011 15:04, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 12/24/2010 5:44 PM, Jan Koum wrote:
hi Ivan and Mike,
wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to this
bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
already disabled. here is what we have:
1. mother
On 12/24/2010 5:44 PM, Jan Koum wrote:
> hi Ivan and Mike,
>
> wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to this
> bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
> already disabled. here is what we have:
>
> 1. motherboard is SuperMicro X8SIE-LN4
On 12/24/2010 5:44 PM, Jan Koum wrote:
> hi Ivan and Mike,
>
> wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to this
> bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
> already disabled. here is what we have:
Hmmm,
With the latest version of t
On 24 December 2010 23:44, Jan Koum wrote:
>
> hi Ivan and Mike,
> wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to this
> bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
> already disabled. here is what we have:
Hi,
The patches Jack made when this d
hi Ivan and Mike,
wanted to follow up and see if you found a solid long-term solution to this
bug. we are still seeing this problem in our 8.2 environment with ASPM
already disabled. here is what we have:
1. motherboard is SuperMicro X8SIE-LN4F Intel Xeon:
e...@pci0:3:0:0: class=0x02 card=0
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/25/10 05:54, Bruce Evans wrote:
Yes, this is normal. It is how ping -f doesn't work -- it doesn't do
anything
resembling flooding, except possibly accidentally when 1 Mbps ethernet was
fast. The ramping up is also accidental.
...
Thank you, that w
On 11/25/10 05:54, Bruce Evans wrote:
Yes, this is normal. It is how ping -f doesn't work -- it doesn't do
anything
resembling flooding, except possibly accidentally when 1 Mbps ethernet was
fast. The ramping up is also accidental.
...
Thank you, that was a very informative explanation!
So in
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
One other thing, I don't know if this is normal as I've only just
noticed it: flood-pinging a machine (also a FreeBSD machine, on the
same switch) and monitoring the packet rates with netstat
On 23 November 2010 18:39, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 04:47 -0800, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
>> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
>> apparently has hardware issues, according to thi
82574 is supposed to be em, not igb :) Its always had this kind of
'in-between'
status, it was targeted as a 'client' or consumer part, but it has MSIX
which
make it almost like 8257[56].
Mike, there are some further 82574 changes to shared code that I'm looking
into today.
Jack
On Tue, Nov 23
On 11/23/2010 12:39 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 04:47 -0800, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
>> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
> i...@pci0:5:0:0:class=0x02 card=0x89751
Those are 82576, not 82574, totally different hardware. Would you please
test the
new driver that will be going into HEAD today, I'd like to see testing on it
as much
as possible for a few days.
Cheers,
Jack
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 04:47 -080
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 04:47 -0800, Ivan Voras wrote:
> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
> apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/ind
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 11/23/10 14:03, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >On 11/23/2010 7:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >>It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
> >>which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
> >>ap
On 11/23/2010 8:16 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 11/23/10 14:03, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 11/23/2010 7:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
>>> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
>>> apparently has hardwa
On 23-11-2010 13:47, Ivan Voras wrote:
> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
> apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread:
I have a Supermicro X7SPE-HF board with two onboard
On 11/23/10 14:03, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/23/2010 7:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread:
http://sourceforg
On 11/23/2010 7:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
> which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
> apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=de
It looks like I'm unfortunate enough to have to deploy on a machine
which has the 82574L Intel NIC chip on a Supermicro X8SIE-F board, which
apparently has hardware issues, according to this thread:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2908463&group_id=42302&atid=447449
One
52 matches
Mail list logo
