Matt Smith wrote:
Matt Smith wrote:

Jimmy Selgen wrote:

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:29, Kris Kennaway wrote:

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:22:49PM +0100, Jimmy Selgen wrote:
I saw this with some of sam's locking changes that (temporarily) broke
DUMMYNET.  I see you're using ipfilter - it's possible that this
configuration has not been well-tested.  Are you passing much traffic
through ipfilter on this box?



The box in question is my workstation, so I guess i'm not passing that much traffic through ipfilter. Also, when I said that the NIC still worked, I might have mislead you a bit. I had about 5-10 timeouts while scp'ing the dmesg output to my other workstation. Data seems to move from userland to the kernel, then get stuck in buffers there for 10-15 seconds, "generating" timeouts, before they're shipped off. I assume this is expected behaviour when a NIC isnt behaving correctly.


It would be helpful if you can do a binary search to narrow down when
the problem started.



What would you have me search ? I'm a faily seasoned C programmer (12 years experience, some of them doing RTOS kernel work), but dont know much about FreeBSD kernel development, or the process of checking out different kernel revisions.


I've tried a build without IPFILTER, and the problem still exists. I've also tried booting with ACPI disabled, and the problem is still there.

I have attached a copy of my kernel config file, in case i'm doing
something wrong.


<snip kernel file>


I have just noticed that my xl0 card is misbehaving as well. I have a 3c905c in my desktop and noticed that an ftp of a file from another machine on the lan (100 meg switched) was only going at around 70KB/sec. Normally I get around 9MB/sec.

A netstat -bi xl0 shows lots of errors:

Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll
xl0 1500 <Link#1> 00:04:76:8d:c5:fd 3081878 217616 3778632119 2451968 6 368229701 0


I also have this in my messages file:

xl0: transmission error: 90
xl0: tx underrun, increasing tx start threshold to 180 bytes
xl0: transmission error: 90
xl0: tx underrun, increasing tx start threshold to 240 bytes
xl0: transmission error: 90
xl0: tx underrun, increasing tx start threshold to 300 bytes
xl0: transmission error: 90
xl0: tx underrun, increasing tx start threshold to 360 bytes
xl0: transmission error: 90
xl0: tx underrun, increasing tx start threshold to 420 bytes

I do not currently have any debugging options compiled into this kernel.

FreeBSD fraggle.xtaz.co.uk 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #0: Tue Nov 18 20:05:52 GMT 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/FRAGGLE i386

I am actually in the process of building a new world/kernel to update it again as I thought it might be something that's fixed. I unfortunatly can not boot the old kernel to see if it works fine in that because of the statfs changes so it *could* possibly be the NIC has gone funny.

I also have a 3c905a and a 3c905b in my router machine and this is showing no issues at all with the same dated kernel.
http://xtaz.net/
Matt.



I am now running a 5.2-BETA kernel from today and still have the problem with my xl0 card here. I can only get a max throughput of around 110KB/sec through it. And I am getting huge amounts of errors in the interface stats (5 minutes after booting):


Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll
xl0 1500 <Link#1> 00:04:76:8d:c5:fd 217042 1290 57669634 309460 0 208178476 0


So the question is, is this my network card has died and I need to throw it out or is it related to Jimmy Selgen's email about the watchdog timeouts?

It's a shame I can't boot an old kernel to test really.

Matt.


I have done some testing on this. I've changed the network cable, switch port etc. No affect.


I've found though that if I ftp this box and GET a file it goes at around 6MB/sec. But if I PUT a file it goes at 100KB/sec.

Previously this has worked at around 9-10MB/sec both ways. I can't place a date on it though because I've not tried to do large file transfers for a long time and only just noticed it this week.

So it looks like it is driver related I guess. The "buffer" scenario Jimmy reported looks likely.

Matt.

_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to