Scott Long wrote:
> My personally opinion is that the changes needed are too risky to rush
> into 6.2 for all of the different drivers. For the vast majority of
> people, what is in 6.2 works quite well, and there is no need to
> introduce new bugs. We are pushing forward with if_em because the
Steven Hartland wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
I don't doubt that there are users with other problems. We spent some
time collecting as much user data as we could in order to find
patterns and weed out the uncommon cases. But this timer/watchdog
thing looks to be a strong candidate for being the ro
Scott Long wrote:
I don't doubt that there are users with other problems. We spent some
time collecting as much user data as we could in order to find
patterns and weed out the uncommon cases. But this timer/watchdog
thing looks to be a strong candidate for being the root cause of many
of the p
On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 at 9:26:26 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> >>Well i have 5.5 box with very similar symptomatic :)
> >>I do not see watchdog timeouts on it, but a lot of UP/DOWN events.
> >
> >Are
On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 at 7:41:02 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> > Well i have 5.5 box with very similar symptomatic :)
> > I do not see watchdog timeouts on it, but a lot of UP/DOWN events.
>
> Are you sure this is the sa
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
Well i have 5.5 box with very similar symptomatic :)
I do not see watchdog timeouts on it, but a lot of UP/DOWN events.
Are you sure this is the same problem as what's being discussed
here? If you revert to
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> Well i have 5.5 box with very similar symptomatic :)
> I do not see watchdog timeouts on it, but a lot of UP/DOWN events.
Are you sure this is the same problem as what's being discussed
here? If you revert to a previous kernel or e
On Monday, 6 November 2006 at 22:42:18 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Just out of curiousity - why wasn't the offending MPSAFE related
> >changes to em just reverted after discovering the em instability? The
> >driver -was- stable a couple of mont
On Tue, November 7, 2006 6:18 pm, Scott Long wrote:
It's just unclear to me how you're associating bce problems with
checksum offloading and IP fragmentation to em problems with design
issues in the watchdog code.
You are correct, the bce watchdog timeouts seem to be related to hw
checksums, a
Jack,
I have done some tests, here are my results. On 6.2-BETA3 i was able to
get a timeout while compiling the kernel and ftping a large file from
another server with the same card. On 6.2-STABLE cvsuped today i was not
able to produce a timeout, i then applied your patch and the results
wer
At 04:52 PM 11/7/2006, Scott Long wrote:
I think it's more that the if_em driver watchdog was insulating the
if_xl driver. Once the if_em component was removed, the if_xl driver
was the next in line to be a victim. So yes, like you say, all of the
drivers need to be fixed.
I wonder if thats
Mike Jakubik wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Mike,
If you have insight into the bce driver, I would highly appreciate if
you would share it.
Scott (the guy who fixed bce)
I don't have any bce hardware myself, I'm just using the information
from the list. I have some em and fxp hardware however
Scott Long wrote:
Mike,
If you have insight into the bce driver, I would highly appreciate if
you would share it.
Scott (the guy who fixed bce)
I don't have any bce hardware myself, I'm just using the information
from the list. I have some em and fxp hardware however that i can use to
do
Mike Jakubik wrote:
Clayton Milos wrote:
Hi Jack
I patched the driver and re-compiled the kernel and userland.
All appears well with the em driver now. No more errors on it.
I am getting watchdog timeouts on the xl driver now though. It was
happenning before at the same time as the em ones.
Jack Vogel wrote:
On 11/7/06, Clayton Milos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jack
I patched the driver and re-compiled the kernel and userland.
All appears well with the em driver now. No more errors on it.
I am getting watchdog timeouts on the xl driver now though. It was
happenning before at
On 11/7/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clayton Milos wrote:
> Hi Jack
>
>
> I patched the driver and re-compiled the kernel and userland.
>
> All appears well with the em driver now. No more errors on it.
> I am getting watchdog timeouts on the xl driver now though. It was
> happenni
Clayton Milos wrote:
Hi Jack
I patched the driver and re-compiled the kernel and userland.
All appears well with the em driver now. No more errors on it.
I am getting watchdog timeouts on the xl driver now though. It was
happenning before at the same time as the em ones. Now I've passed a
lo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "ke han" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: em driver testing
Well, so run 6.2 BETA3 plus the patch I posted as Patrick
mentioned and then report on that. You've got a lot of
potential problem areas here, I hav
On 11/7/06, Clayton Milos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jack
I patched the driver and re-compiled the kernel and userland.
All appears well with the em driver now. No more errors on it.
I am getting watchdog timeouts on the xl driver now though. It was
happenning before at the same time as the
e greatly appreciated.
Clay
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Vogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Clayton Milos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "ke han" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: em driver testing
We
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 04:14:40PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Well, so run 6.2 BETA3 plus the patch I posted as Patrick
> mentioned and then report on that. You've got a lot of
> potential problem areas here, I have no experience with
> samba on FreeBSD. And that motherboard only has PCI
> as I rec
On 11/6/06, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just out of curiousity - why wasn't the offending MPSAFE related
changes to em just reverted after discovering the em instability? The
driver -was- stable a couple of months ago, no?
Actually it was not. Some reports have cited problems back
t
Just out of curiousity - why wasn't the offending MPSAFE related
changes to em just reverted after discovering the em instability? The
driver -was- stable a couple of months ago, no?
Adrian
--
Adrian Chadd - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-stable@freeb
Well, so run 6.2 BETA3 plus the patch I posted as Patrick
mentioned and then report on that. You've got a lot of
potential problem areas here, I have no experience with
samba on FreeBSD. And that motherboard only has PCI
as I recall, yes? Still, it should get rid of the watchdogs
unless you have r
Hi there
I am having similar issues. Running 6.1-RELEASE.
I'm using the box as a samba server with pure-ftpd on it too with 2.5T of
raid storage in it. the box is running the generic MP kernel on a Tyan
Thunder K7 with the latest bios v2.14 and dual AthlonMP's. ECC Reg ram that
passed all tes
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:55:50AM +0800, ke han wrote:
> I have a Sun X4100 which uses Intel ethernet. I would like to
> install amd64 6.2beta3 on this server and put it through some tests.
> But I have no idea what tests to run or how to run them.
> Can someone provide some pointers?
If memory serves me right, ke han wrote:
> According to the 6.2-beta3 announcemetn, there are improvements to
> the em driver.
>
> "The most important of the things that have been worked on is the
> driver for em(4). "
>
> I have a Sun X4100 which uses Intel ethernet. I would like to
> insta
According to the 6.2-beta3 announcemetn, there are improvements to
the em driver.
"The most important of the things that have been worked on is the
driver for em(4). "
I have a Sun X4100 which uses Intel ethernet. I would like to
install amd64 6.2beta3 on this server and put it through some
28 matches
Mail list logo
