Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:31:38 -0500 From: Charles Owens <cowens@greatbaysoftware.com> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>, Sergey Babkin <babkin@verizon.net>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "David G. Lawrence" <dg@dglawrence.com> Subject: Re: Sudden mbuf demand increase and shortage under the load (igb issue?) Message-ID: <4B99370A.1090209@greatbaysoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <4B992D7A.3060401@greatbaysoftware.com> References: <4B79297D.9080403@FreeBSD.org> <4B79205B.619A0A1A@verizon.net> <4B7ADFC6.7020202@FreeBSD.org> <4B7DE3CC.7040704@FreeBSD.org> <20100219034255.GG11675@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <2a41acea1002182343i1ef0124fm8e2f6cc56846454c@mail.gmail.com> <4B992D7A.3060401@greatbaysoftware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've dug around in the source repo... it appears the new code is just shy of being MFC'd. Any known caveats with the new code or is it by all accounts good to go? I'm going to try testing it in 8.0. Thanks Charles Owens Great Bay Software, Inc. Charles Owens wrote: > Hello Jack, > > We're seeing iffy behavior with igb on FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE on a new > Intel server box (based on their S5520UR motherboard). So far we've > seen only oddness with link-state (it wants to always say "active", with > no cable plugged in, unless we do an ifconfig up/down/up), but I'm > concerned that we might fall victim to other symptoms mentioned if we > put the system under load. > > Would you recommend we apply the igb patch you've mentioned? Is it in > RELENG_8 yet, or is it still under development? > > Thanks very much, > Charles > > Charles Owens > Great Bay Software, Inc. > > > > Jack Vogel wrote: > >> This thread is confusing, first he says its an igb problem, then you offer >> an em patch :) >> >> I have an important rev of igb that I am about ready to release, anyone that >> wishes to >> test against a problem they have would be welcome to have early access, just >> let me >> know. >> >> I am not sure about this ich10 change, there are client NICs that >> specifically do NOT >> support jumbo frames, I'll need to look into it tomorrow at work. >> >> Jack >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 05:05:16PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Indeed, it looks like igb(4) issue. Replacing the card with the >>>> desktop-grade em(4)-supported card has fixed the problem for us. The >>>> system has been happily pushing 110mbps worth of RTP traffic and 2000 >>>> concurrent calls without any problems for two days now. >>>> >>>> em0@pci0:7:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0xa01f8086 chip=0x10d38086 rev=0x00 >>>> hdr=0x00 >>>> vendor = 'Intel Corporation' >>>> class = network >>>> subclass = ethernet >>>> >>>> em0: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 6.9.6> port 0xec00-0xec1f mem >>>> 0xfbee0000-0xfbefffff,0xfbe00000-0xfbe7ffff,0xfbedc000-0xfbedffff irq 24 >>>> at device 0.0 on pci7 >>>> em0: Using MSIX interrupts >>>> em0: [ITHREAD] >>>> em0: [ITHREAD] >>>> em0: [ITHREAD] >>>> em0: Ethernet address: 00:1b:21:50:02:49 >>>> >>>> I really think that this has to be addressed before 7.3 release is out. >>>> FreeBSD used to be famous for its excellent network performance and it's >>>> shame to see that deteriorating due to sub-standard quality drivers. >>>> Especially when there is a multi-billion vendor supporting the driver in >>>> question. No finger pointing, but it really looks like either somebody >>>> is not doing his job or the said vendor doesn't care so much about >>>> supporting FreeBSD. I am pretty sure the vendor in question has access >>>> to numerous load-testing tools, that should have catched this issue. >>>> >>>> This is the second time during the past 6 months I have issue with the >>>> quality of the Intel-based drivers - the first one is filed as >>>> kern/140326, which has stalled apparently despite me providing all >>>> necessary debug information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I can reproduce this bug on my box and I guess the root cause comes >>> from PBA(Packet Buffer Allocation) configuration. Some controllers >>> seems to require more TX buffer size to use 9000 MTU. The datasheet >>> is not clear which controller has how much amount of Packet Buffer >>> storage. This parameter seems to affect performance a lot because >>> increasing TX buffer size results in decreasing RX buffer size. The >>> attached patch seems to fix the issue for me but Jack may know >>> better the hardware details as publicly available datasheet seems >>> to be useless here. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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" > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B99370A.1090209>