Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:36:34 -0600
From:      Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>
To:        Yousif Hassan <yousif@alumni.jmu.edu>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: network interface monitoring?
Message-ID:  <20080124163634.GA25331@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
In-Reply-To: <1201190313.2591.7.camel@localhost>
References:  <1201125022.2106.67.camel@localhost> <20080123222047.GA14264@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <1201190313.2591.7.camel@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:58:33AM -0500, Yousif Hassan wrote:
> Thank you to all who responded.
>=20
> The suggestion was made to use devd or ifstated.  Both sound like
> excellent tools, but I'm currently being tripped up by a core problem -
> both tools rely on the kernel to notify userland of link state changes
> (which makes complete sense!).  This is all well and good - but the
> current issue I'm seeing is that the link state doesn't get updated
> without running "ifconfig" again - is this by design?  A known "issue?"
>=20
> An example:
> 1. Unplug network cable from bfe0
> 2. I run ifconfig
> 3. I see that interface bfe0's status is "no carrier".  Good.
> 4. I plug the cable into bfe0
> 5. Wait... wait... look in /var/log/messages... wait more.. NO STATE
> CHANGE - the longest I've waited was 2 minutes, which is already too
> long
> 6. run "ifconfig" again
> 7. Link state immediately changes, logs to /var/log/messages, devd
> scripts run
>=20
> Is this a known behavior?  It seems like the link state changes should
> happen automatically, without something to "trigger" them.  Isn't there
> some kind of poll or interrupt sequence?  I'm on 6.3 RC2 (will upgrade
> to 6.3-RELEASE imminently) but can't imagine this code changed?  Does
> this work differently/better in 7.0?

It's known but not well understood and is a driver bug.

-- Brooks

--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHmL6RXY6L6fI4GtQRAniAAJ412B+KsDqaoAA9lQDbBQH9FCbTnACeJH9b
rdAlvAK0c40kOwvIPKwXo7Y=
=thqW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080124163634.GA25331>