From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 16:52:58 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9E31065671 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:52:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F0C8FC18 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:52:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m4TGqtU2060680; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:52:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m4TGqt2o060679; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:52:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:52:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200805291652.m4TGqt2o060679@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de In-Reply-To: <20080529171351.a3dd5111.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.2-STABLE-20070808 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 29 May 2008 18:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: broken re(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:52:58 -0000 Gerrit Kühn wrote: > Meanwhile I have set up two more machines. Now I have 5 ITX systems, > each with 2 re-NICs, and only one is behaving strange. In that case I would suspect that the one piece of hardware that is misbehaving is broken and needs to be replaced. > The only hardware thing that is different in this system from the > others is an additional SATA-controller. Can there be conflicts with > this card which are triggering the problems? I think it's unlikely. Do they share interrupts? (The output of "vmstat -i" will tell you.) In theory it could also be a power supply problem. I assume that you use rather small (thus possibly weak) power supplies for your ITX machines. Maybe the SATA controller in that problematic machine drives the power supply to its limit, and the re(4) interfaces suffer. You could check whether removing the SATA controller improves things. Or try to connect a stronger power supply if you have one available. Other than that, typical things to do to diagnose such problems: - Do you see any non-zero numbers in the collision or error columns of "netstat -i"? - Are you sure the interfaces don't have the same MAC addresses (it's unlikely, but it doesn't hurt to check in the ifconfig output). - Are you sure that media and duplex settings are correct on both sides (i.e. PC and switch)? - Have you tried replacing cables, switch ports, or the whole switch? - Have you tried to disable hardware support features of the driver? In 7-stable re(4) supports quite a lot of hardware features. See "ifconfig -m". You could check whether disabling RXCSUM, TXCSUM and/or TSO4 makes a difference. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "[...] one observation we can make here is that Python makes an excellent pseudocoding language, with the wonderful attribute that it can actually be executed." -- Bruce Eckel