From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 13:50:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD4A16A4CF for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from niobe.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [193.2.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44E743D1D for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:50:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dejan.lesjak@ijs.si) Received: from localhost (localhost.ijs.si [127.0.0.1]) by niobe.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2FC1DE013; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:50:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from niobe.ijs.si ([193.2.4.66]) by localhost (niobe.ijs.si [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70036-09; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:50:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from rincewind.ijs.si (rincewind.ijs.si [193.2.4.137]) by niobe.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B161DDF21; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:50:03 +0100 (CET) From: Dejan Lesjak To: Doug White Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:50:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.94 References: <20031228233331.1F3F05D04@ptavv.es.net> <200312292131.14657.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <20031229205946.I27691@carver.gumbysoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20031229205946.I27691@carver.gumbysoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200312302250.03256.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new / Sophos+Sophie at ijs.si cc: Ryan Sommers cc: Mike Silbersack cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.2-RC oerrs and collisions on dc0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:19 -0000 On Tuesday 30 of December 2003 06:00, Doug White wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Dejan Lesjak wrote: > > As I said in previous mail (but a bit further down) setting explicitly to > > full-duplex doesn't help; I tried now also setting it to half-duplex and > > the errors are still there. > > Mind you, both ends need to be forced for the right thing to happen. If > you only force one side, then the other usually ends up on half-duplex and > you get the kinds of problems you're seeing. Yes, I tried forcing both ends (after setting one end gave me input errors as well, though) and errors and collisions are being pruduced at same rate. On Monday 29 of December 2003 21:23, Mike Silbersack wrote: > I haven't read the thread in question through completely, but I just want > to make you guys aware that -current's if_dc has a bug where it will > report _false_ collisions on many network cards. > > Example from one of my systems: > > dc0 1500 00:20:78:0f:a0:a6 10307782 0 15428017 0 > 827213 dc0 1500 10.1.1/24 10.1.1.6 10304908 - 15428012 > - - > > However, I am not aware of it producing any output error messages, so that > may be a real problem. I'm glad to hear that reporting of errors might be false. So I setup some monitoring of ports on both ends of cable, put apache on server with dc card and made a cron job on another machine (on same switch) to fetch a file of around 100MB every 5 minutes from server. So things go thusly - on server side there is constant flow of output errors and collisions with a peak at reboot. Collisions amount about 10% of output errors, which about 0.1% of output traffic. On switch side there is only a peak of input errors at server reboot, then there are no more errors. I'm not entirely sure if I can make conclusions based on this, but this can probably be false alarm then. Tell me if there is something more that I can do to confirm that these are in fact false collisions and errors. Also if seing graphs would help, they are on http://niobe.ijs.si/ewok/ Thanks everybody for help, Dejan