From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 21 09:52:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADFC16A4CE for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:52:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ctb-mesg5.saix.net (ctb-mesg5.saix.net [196.25.240.77]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372B743D46 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:52:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from savage@savage.za.org) Received: from netsphere.cenergynetworks.com (wblv-146-240-203.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.240.203]) by ctb-mesg5.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E1E257B for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:52:11 +0200 (SAST) Received: from pmx.ournet.co.za ([198.19.0.73] helo=netsphere.cenergynetworks.com) by netsphere.cenergynetworks.com with smtp (Exim 4.41) id 1D3AEb-0000Vf-qq for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:52:09 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.10] (helo=netphobia) by netsphere.cenergynetworks.com with smtp (Exim 4.41) id 1D3AEZ-0000Vb-qz for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:52:07 +0200 Message-ID: <000701c517fb$0e32af40$0a01a8c0@ops.cenergynetworks.com> From: "Chris Knipe" To: Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:52:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: 192.168.1.10 X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.2.8.1 Subject: high latency X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Chris Knipe List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:52:17 -0000 Hi, I have 4 FreeBSD Servers connected to a Cisco 2950 all doing inter-VLAN routing. Everything is working right, but one server is getting absurdly high latency through the VLANs. problem box: root@wsmd-core01:/home/cknipe# ping 198.19.0.1 PING 198.19.0.1 (198.19.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1020.571 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1114.468 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=934.580 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=814.296 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=682.657 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1173.596 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1212.085 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1021.996 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=826.783 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=372.565 ms ^C --- 198.19.0.1 ping statistics --- 12 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 16% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 372.565/917.360/1212.085/241.657 ms second box: root@efanious:~# ping 198.19.0.1 PING 198.19.0.1 (198.19.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.847 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.484 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.478 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.564 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.913 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=3.057 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.839 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.526 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.791 ms 64 bytes from 198.19.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.522 ms ^C --- 198.19.0.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.478/1.902/3.057/0.537 ms The other's ping basically the same (1.4ms -> 4ms). Now, the problematic box is running a RealTek card, netstat -bin reports no input / output errors. The interface on the Cisco 2950 also doesn't report any problems or errors on the interface. Does anyone have some recommendations? I'm thinking of just switching the NIC out, but I'd rather want to make sure first that is actually the problem. -- Chris.