2017-06-25 16:32 GMT+01:00 Ryan Stone :
> Having looking at the original email more closely, I see that you showed an
> mlxen interface with a 9020 MTU. Seeing allocation failures of 9k mbuf
> clusters increase while you are far below the zone's limit means that
> you're definitely running into t
On 25.06.2017 18:32, Ryan Stone wrote:
> Having looking at the original email more closely, I see that you showed an
> mlxen interface with a 9020 MTU. Seeing allocation failures of 9k mbuf
> clusters increase while you are far below the zone's limit means that
> you're definitely running into the
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> I think it is not mlxen specific problem, we have the same symptoms with
> ixgbe(4) driver too. To avoid the problem we have patches that are
> disable using of 9k mbufs, and instead only use 4k mbufs.
Interesting feedback Andrey, thank y
On 26.06.2017 16:27, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>
>> I think it is not mlxen specific problem, we have the same symptoms with
>> ixgbe(4) driver too. To avoid the problem we have patches that are
>> disable using of 9k mbufs, and instead only use 4k
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> On 26.06.2017 16:27, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it is not mlxen specific problem, we have the same symptoms with
>>> ixgbe(4) driver too. To avoid the problem we have patc
On 26.06.2017 16:29, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>
>> On 26.06.2017 16:27, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>>
On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
I think it is not mlxen specific problem, we have the same symptoms with
ixgbe(4)
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:36, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> On 26.06.2017 16:29, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26.06.2017 16:27, Ben RUBSON wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> I think it is no
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:13:33PM +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 25.06.2017 18:32, Ryan Stone wrote:
> > Having looking at the original email more closely, I see that you showed an
> > mlxen interface with a 9020 MTU. Seeing allocation failures of 9k mbuf
> > clusters increase while you are
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> I think it is not mlxen specific problem, we have the same symptoms with
> ixgbe(4) driver too. To avoid the problem we have patches that are
> disable using of 9k mbufs, and instead only use 4k mbufs.
Another workaround is to decrease th
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:44:58PM +0200, Julien Cigar wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:13:33PM +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> > On 25.06.2017 18:32, Ryan Stone wrote:
> > > Having looking at the original email more closely, I see that you showed
> > > an
> > > mlxen interface with a 9020 MT
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 26.06.2017 16:29, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26.06.2017 16:27, Ben RUBSON wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 15:13, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> I think it is not
On 26.06.2017 19:26, Matt Joras wrote:
> I didn't think that ixgbe(4) still suffered from this problem, and we
> use it in the same situations rstone mentioned above. Indeed, ixgbe(4)
> doesn't presently suffer from this problem (you can see that in your
> patch, as it is only effectively changing
Hello,
I am looking for people to give feedback on a review I've opened to
improve the locking in vlan(4). Anyone who's done a fair amount of
destroying vlan interfaces on live systems has probably run into
panics in if_vlan. This is because there is no real synchronization to
prevent a vlan inter
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Youssef GHORBAL
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having an issue with a FreeBSD 11 based system, sending
> sporadically TCP/RST to clients after initial TCP session correctly initiated.
> The sequence goes this way :
>
> 1 Client -> Server : SYN
>
Out of curiosity, what sort of lagg setup are you using that's causing
the TCP packets to be split across the two lagg interfaces?
Matt
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Youssef GHORBAL
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm having an issue
Don't forget that, generally, as I understand it, the network stack suffers
from the same problem for 9k buffers.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
> > On 25 Jun 2017, at 17:32, Ryan Stone wrote:
> >
> > Having looking at the original email more closely, I see that you showed
16 matches
Mail list logo