Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:09:33 -0700 From: Eli Dart <dart@nersc.gov> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em driver worse then fxp driver ... why? Message-ID: <20040810210933.20C01F987@gemini.nersc.gov> In-Reply-To: Message from "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> <20040810173211.V776@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1252978169P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In reply to "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> : > > I have 5 servers sitting on a Linksys 10/100 switch ... 4 of the 5 are > running fxp0 ethernet, while the 5th is running em ... and the 5th > performs atrociously: > > neptune# netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Co ll > em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 10858 513 > > I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs climbs, hal f-duplex, Collisions climb ... I would expect collisions on a half-duplex link -- this is not necessarily a Bad Thing. It could be that the unmanaged switch is unable to talk full-duplex to the em interface for some reason..... Do you have throughput numbers for the two configs (half-duplex em, full-duplex em, and full-duplex fxp)? --eli > > the fxp devices are all running at full-duplex, and perform quite well: > > pluto# netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Co ll > fxp0 1500 <Link#1> 00:03:47:bd:67:66 105856025 0 97330263 2 0 > jupiter# netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Co ll > fxp0 1500 <Link#1> 00:03:47:30:a7:1b 28832141 0 29437148 0 0 > mars# netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Co ll > fxp0 1500 <Link#1> 00:e0:81:21:d7:f6 34195201 0 29871571 0 0 > venus# netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Co ll > fxp0 1500 <Link#1> 00:e0:81:29:56:5b 95579278 1 87014732 1 0 > > Originally, it was explained that unmanaged switches tended to be > problematic, but I'd expect some sort of uniformity in problems, but 'just > the server with the em device' ... > > So, is there a bug in the em device driver that doesn't exist on the fxp0 > devices? > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > --==_Exmh_-1252978169P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFBGTmNLTFEeF+CsrMRAtM6AJ48LRdUe9eVDspUICCA+zGxFx6B2QCg1ln8 DoWI5I2KPpCcn+q4pRboJXQ= =hF6U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1252978169P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040810210933.20C01F987>