Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:09:30 -0700 From: "David Christensen" <davidch@broadcom.com> To: "pyunyh@gmail.com" <pyunyh@gmail.com>, "Charles Sprickman" <spork@bway.net> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, David Christensen <davidch@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: bce packet loss Message-ID: <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385C32D9347@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20110707174233.GB8702@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1107042113000.2407@freemac> <20110706201509.GA5559@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1107070121060.2407@freemac> <20110707174233.GB8702@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Any thoughts on that? It's the only thing that differs between the > two > > switches. > > >=20 > This makes me think possibility of duplex mismatch between bce(4) > and link partner. You should not use forced media configuration on > 1000baseT link. If you used manual media configuration on bce(4) > and link partner used auto-negotiation, resolved duplex would be > half-duplex. It's standard behavior and Duplex mismatch can cause > strange problems. > I would check whether link partner also agrees on the resolved > speed/duplex of bce(4). Forced link speed at 1000Mbps is not supported by the IEEE specification, you MUST use auto-negotiation at 1000Mbps (though you can advertise support for 1000Mb only to simulate forced operation). =20 Duplex mismatch usually manifests with collision/deferred=20 transmission errors on the link partner configured for=20 half-duplex. The bce(4) driver does support those statistics. Dave
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385C32D9347>