On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:20:06PM -0400, Mark Saad wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Garrett Cooper
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:14, Gary Palmer wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > I'm no expert, but you may want to try setting
> > >
> > > hw.igb.num_queues=1
> > >
> > > and may
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Garrett Cooper
wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:14, Gary Palmer wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I'm no expert, but you may want to try setting
> >
> > hw.igb.num_queues=1
> >
> > and maybe
> >
> > hw.ixgbe.num_queues=1
> >
> > in the boot loader and trying that.
>
> Ther
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:14, Gary Palmer wrote:
...
> I'm no expert, but you may want to try setting
>
> hw.igb.num_queues=1
>
> and maybe
>
> hw.ixgbe.num_queues=1
>
> in the boot loader and trying that.
There was another discussion that took place around June on current that might
be he
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:11:09PM -0400, Mark Saad wrote:
> All
> I am wondering if anyone has run into this issue before , and if there is
> a fix.
> I have a Scalable Informatics siRouter with 24 Intel I350 igb nics and 8
> intel 82599ES ixgbe/ix nic . The SiRouter is a Supe
All
I am wondering if anyone has run into this issue before , and if there is
a fix.
I have a Scalable Informatics siRouter with 24 Intel I350 igb nics and 8
intel 82599ES ixgbe/ix nic . The SiRouter is a Supermicro X9DRX+-F with a
bunch of intel nics.
On Head I run into a boot panic out of the
Hi Dan,
Am Dienstag, den 12.04.2011, 17:42 -0500 schrieb Dan Nelson:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/hardware/module/guide/03instal.html#wpxref23495
you saved our week :-) That was it. My Cisco administrator take a closer
look and found out, that both NICs
ning active-passive instead of
> > > > active-active ... just a thought...
> > >
> > > 150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any loadbalancing. The sum
> > > has to be more than 112MB/s.
> >
> > it must me the network. I tested two crossov
target IPs. Every IP has his own 1Gb/s network card.
> On the end, two clients had a connection to IP 1 and the second two to
> IP 2.
>
> First we used the two onboard NICs and then, one onboard and one
> external NIC, but without success. We never get more then 112MB/s
>
> All
) and
> two target IPs. Every IP has his own 1Gb/s network card.
> On the end, two clients had a connection to IP 1 and the second two to
> IP 2.
>
> First we used the two onboard NICs and then, one onboard and one
> external NIC, but without success. We never get more then 112M
t a thought...
> >
> > 150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any loadbalancing. The sum
> > has to be more than 112MB/s.
>
> it must me the network. I tested two crossover connections and I've got
> 220MB/s :-)
Check to see whether your switch ports are ov
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.04.2011, 21:52 +0200 schrieb Denny Schierz:
> hi,
>
> Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk:
>
> > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of
> > active-active ...
> > just a thought...
>
> 150% sure. I
hi,
Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk:
> Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of
> active-active ...
> just a thought...
150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any loadbalancing. The sum has to
be more than 112MB/s.
cu denny
ps. I
in some of those. Also you might simply be
>
> that was the reason, why we disabled the loadbalancer and tested with plain
> NICs.
>
>> reaching the limits of your firewall box too you haven't mentioned any
>> of it's specs, nor do you seem to have run top wh
abled the loadbalancer and tested with plain
NICs.
> reaching the limits of your firewall box too you haven't mentioned any
> of it's specs, nor do you seem to have run top while running the iperf
> tests.
The clients (who running iperf -c ) had a load near zero, they are pow
had a connection to IP 1 and the second two to
IP 2.
First we used the two onboard NICs and then, one onboard and one
external NIC, but without success. We never get more then 112MB/s
All are connected through a Cisco Catalyst WS-X4515.
The mainboard is a Intel S3420GP.
any suggestion?
cu denny
I have possibly found a bug in FreeBSD RELENG_8 where the system would randomly
grind to a halt between 1 hour and 8 hours uptime. This did not occur in 7.2
on the same hardware. I see lots of re0: watchdog timeout messages on the
console and then suddenly everything freezes - the keybaord inp
on pci0
> > pci7: on pcib7
> > em5: port 0xdc00-0xdc1f mem
> > 0xfafe-0xfaff,0xfafdc000-0xfafd irq 17 at device 0.0 on pci7
> >
> > em5: Using MSIX interrupts
> > em5: [ITHREAD]
> > em5: [ITHREAD]
> > em5: [ITHREAD]
> > em5: Etherne
pcib7
> em5: port 0xdc00-0xdc1f mem
> 0xfafe-0xfaff,0xfafdc000-0xfafd irq 17 at device 0.0 on pci7
>
> em5: Using MSIX interrupts
> em5: [ITHREAD]
> em5: [ITHREAD]
> em5: [ITHREAD]
> em5: Ethernet address: 00:30:48:d6:ef:13
>
> So the problem is _not_ there under
pci7
em5: Using MSIX interrupts
em5: [ITHREAD]
em5: [ITHREAD]
em5: [ITHREAD]
em5: Ethernet address: 00:30:48:d6:ef:13
So the problem is _not_ there under RELENG_8. I also tested the 2
PCIe nics to make sure they are still working, and they are.
Full dmesg below
opyright (c) 1992-2009 The
ke
Best regards,
Jack
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Mike Tancsa
<<mailto:m...@sentex.net>m...@sentex.net> wrote:
On two Intel chipset Supermicro boards (X8STi and X8STE-0) using the
onboard em nics (dmesg info below), I seem to have run into an issue
where if I boot th
r try this.
Best regards,
Jack
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> On two Intel chipset Supermicro boards (X8STi and X8STE-0) using the
> onboard em nics (dmesg info below), I seem to have run into an issue where
> if I boot the box up with the cables unplugged,
On two Intel chipset Supermicro boards (X8STi and X8STE-0) using the
onboard em nics (dmesg info below), I seem to have run into an issue
where if I boot the box up with the cables unplugged, I cannot get
the NICS to properly work post boot up. This is quite repeatable for
me. So at boot
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 11:52 +, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
>
> >> I'll need to think a bit about a proper fix for this, but you'll find the
> >> problem likely goes away if you eliminate all uid/gid/jail rules from your
> >> firewall. You could also tweak
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
I'll need to think a bit about a proper fix for this, but you'll find the
problem likely goes away if you eliminate all uid/gid/jail rules from your
firewall. You could also tweak the syncache logic not to use a retransmit
timer, which might slightly
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 18:01 +, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
>
> > Right, here we go!
> ...
>
> Turns out that the problem is a lock cycle triggered by the syncache calling,
> indirectly, the firewall during output, and the firewall trying to look up
> the
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
Right, here we go!
...
Turns out that the problem is a lock cycle triggered by the syncache calling,
indirectly, the firewall during output, and the firewall trying to look up the
connection for the packet. Thread one:
Tracing PID 31 tid 100030 t
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:49 +, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a lock leak -- if you're running INVARIANTS, then "show allocks"
> should read WITNESS
> > and "show allchains" would be usef
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:56:24 +1100 Nick Withers wrote:
> I'm sorry to ask what is probably a very simple question, but is there
> somewhere I should look to get clues on debugging from a manually
> generated dump? I tried "panic" after manually envoking the kernel
> debugger but proved highly inep
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
Sorry for the original double-post, by the way, not quite sure how that
happened...
I can reproduce this problem relatively easily, by the way (every 3 days, on
average). I meant to say this before, too, but it seems to happen a lot more
often on the
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:37 +, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
>
> > I recently installed my first amd64 system (currently running RELENG_7 from
> > 2009-03-11) to replace an aged ppc box and have been having dramas with the
> > network locking up.
> >
> > Bre
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
Sounds like a lock leak -- if you're running INVARIANTS, then "show allocks"
should read WITNESS
and "show allchains" would be useful. I've had a report of a TCP lock leak
possibly in tcp_input(),
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
I recently installed my first amd64 system (currently running RELENG_7 from
2009-03-11) to replace an aged ppc box and have been having dramas with the
network locking up.
Breaking into the debugger manually and ps-ing shows the network card (e.g.,
"
Hello all,
I recently installed my first amd64 system (currently running RELENG_7
from 2009-03-11) to replace an aged ppc box and have been having dramas
with the network locking up.
Breaking into the debugger manually and ps-ing shows the network card
(e.g., "[irq20: fxp0+]") in state "LL" in "
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:22:49PM -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Nevermind, I found
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-January/009543.html
>
> Now the nics are working. Thanks anyways!
>
CURRENT has msk(4) for your NIC.
If you have a chance to run CURR
Nevermind, I found
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-January/009543.html
Now the nics are working. Thanks anyways!
Scott
On 1/16/07, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I am currently working with a Nexcom 1086 that features 2 Marvell
chipsets with 8
Hello,
I am currently working with a Nexcom 1086 that features 2 Marvell
chipsets with 8 total nics. This device is slated to become a
FreeBSD/pfSense router.
During probing, all nics show up okay sk0-sk3 and skc-0-3 but the skc
nics do not show up in ifconfig.
Is there something that I am
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 11:33, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 November 2006 10:43, Scott Long wrote:
> > Josh Paetzel wrote:
> > > I've been using 6.1-R on a PE1950 for some time now. The stock
> > > bce driver doesn't work at all. I dug up a driver off the web
> > > (0.9.6) that wor
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 10:43, Scott Long wrote:
> Josh Paetzel wrote:
> > I've been using 6.1-R on a PE1950 for some time now. The stock
> > bce driver doesn't work at all. I dug up a driver off the web
> > (0.9.6) that worked fine with my workload (basically all TCP) but
> > in talking to
Josh Paetzel wrote:
I've been using 6.1-R on a PE1950 for some time now. The stock bce
driver doesn't work at all. I dug up a driver off the web (0.9.6)
that worked fine with my workload (basically all TCP) but in talking
to Scott I discovered that UDP traffic was a problem for this driver.
I've been using 6.1-R on a PE1950 for some time now. The stock bce
driver doesn't work at all. I dug up a driver off the web (0.9.6)
that worked fine with my workload (basically all TCP) but in talking
to Scott I discovered that UDP traffic was a problem for this driver.
Some time ago I upgr
> Sex, 2006-02-17 às 15:43 +0100, Thomas Franck escreveu:
> > > Unless you take special measures (ng_fec?), one does not
> > > normally connect two NICs on one machine to the same collision
> > > domain.
> >
> > Hmm.. don't really see a problem with
Sex, 2006-02-17 às 15:43 +0100, Thomas Franck escreveu:
> > Unless you take special measures (ng_fec?), one does not
> > normally connect two NICs on one machine to the same collision
> > domain.
>
> Hmm.. don't really see a problem with that.. two NICs with
&g
saying it should be.. It's not bad behaviour at all.. the Kernel
is just concerned about the weird broadcasts that are on the
net..
If I got that right - sorry for the noise and thanks for the
knowledge... :)
> Unless you take special measures (ng_fec?), one does not
> normal
{FreeBSD}
> | |
> [sw1] [sw2]
> | |
> [switch3]
>| | |
>| | {me}
>|
> [router]
>
> the switch3 will be VLAN'ed again and properly connected once
> the firewall is back..)
Unless you take special measures (ng_fec?), one does not normally connect two
NIC
haviour.. :)
> >
> > I've going through the archives & web but the threads I found
> > didn't fit my case.. :(
>
> The first two hits from Google were informative, but this is what
> you want:
the ones I found where about routing or two NICs on the same
subn
Thomas Franck wrote:
[ ... ]
> It doesn't seem to affect the function of the server, but it's
> mighty irritating and blows up the logs a lot... plus, I don't
> think it's supposed to show this behaviour.. :)
>
> I've going through the archives & web but the threads I found
> didn't fit my case
Sounds like u have two netcards plugged into the same network or
some other sort of network loop.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How can an arp reply be received by the wrong interface, though?
Isn't the request broadcast and the reply MAC add
On 17 Feb 2006 at 12:26, Dominic Marks wrote:
> Tried these sysctls?
>
> net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface
> net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_movements
> net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_permanent_modify
I set this in sysctl.conf now and did a reboot..
net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface = 0
an
Hi there...!
I'm a long-time reader, but this is my first post.. :)
I set up our old server (an Acer Altos 11000) with Release 6.0
two days ago (cvsup'ed and installed new world and custom kernel
(see below)) and I keep getting a huge amounts of these message:
-
Feb 17 12:39:46 scorpio ker
Because of the nature of this bug, I have no network access on my FreeBSD
machine and so I'm filing this off my wife's laptop. I can't send-pr in any
other manner. Would someone please post this
SYSTEM
IBM 380XD Thinkpad Laptop running either a recent (post-May) 4.8-STABLE or
5.1-RELEASE (off th
Holger Kipp writes:
| I have a little problem with dc10, dc11. I use three quad dc cards,
| so far from dc0 up to dc8 with no problems.
|
| All (dc0 to dc11) are displayed correctly with pciconf and with ifconfig.
| The trouble is with dc10 and dc11 that they don't send any data out and
| also don
Hi,
I have a little problem with dc10, dc11. I use three quad dc cards,
so far from dc0 up to dc8 with no problems.
All (dc0 to dc11) are displayed correctly with pciconf and with ifconfig.
The trouble is with dc10 and dc11 that they don't send any data out and
also don't react to arp requests et
Hi all,
Many if_dc cards are still broken in RELENG_4. Can you please
try this diff if you own such a broken card ?
If you have a Conexant LANfinity MiniPCI 10/100BaseTX card, I'd like
to have feedback if full duplex mode works now too.
Thank you very much for your tests. I'd like to see all th
adcom Corporation'
device = 'BCM5703X Gigabit Ethernet'
class= network
subclass = ethernet
I fiddled with BIOS settings (no "PnP OS" option) and tried a stripped
down kernel with no success. Installing a 3c905 PCI card works fine, but
I would pref
Just wondering at the status of two network cards I've run across to date,
and the status of whether patches are being looked over.
First is the D-Link DFE-538TX, which as yet is not handled natively in
4.4-STABLE - a patch, which works well on two of my systems, here:
http://www.brad-x.com/card
cc:
Subject: RE: lnc0 and AT1500 NICs
i am using the installation floppies from 4.1.1-RELEASE.
Should i get something newer?
-
If it is NE2000 compatible, it should work with Linux or FreeBSD
no problem. In Linux, you want to use the "ne" kernel module if it is an
ISA card, or the "ne2k-pci" module if it is a PCI card. Slackware comes
with these modules and all you should have to do is run "modprobe
".
The
Iain Templeton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Jimmy Zongos wrote:
>
> > i got a computer with a sn2000 nic card and it says its ne2000
> > compatible but when i try to run it in slackware it doesnt work and i
> > was wondering if it would work in freebsd 3.3-stable please email me
> > if it can
Use the setup utility shipped with the NIC to disable plug-n-play and
set the I/O and IRQ manually.
Make sure FreeBSD is configured the to match.
I've used this NIC with FreeBSD 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, and 3.2.
-- Scott
Jimmy Zongos wrote:
i
got a computer with a sn2000 nic card and it says its ne2000
59 matches
Mail list logo
