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 Coll em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 10858513 I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs climbs, half-duplex, Collisions climb ... 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 Coll 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 Coll 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 Coll 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 Coll 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
At 04:37 PM 10/08/2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:>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 Coll >em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 >10858513 > >I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs climbs, >half-duplex, Collisions climb ...if its unmanaged, autoneg is all that will work. Try that and see if the errors climb. If you are still seeing errors check the cables. There are occasionally incompatibilities between certain NICs and switches, but thats pretty rare see /usr/src/sys/dev/em/README ---Mike
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> > 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 > Coll > em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 > 10858513I have no problems with em:> netstat -ni | headName Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:46:98 1859370761 0 1709686290 0 0> uname -rsFreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p3 -- Spartak Radchenko SVR1-RIPE
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Spartak Radchenko wrote:> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >> 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 >> Coll >> em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 >> 10858513 > > I have no problems with em: > >> netstat -ni | head > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll > em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:46:98 1859370761 0 1709686290 0 0 > >> uname -rs > FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p3Against what type of switch? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 23.44, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Spartak Radchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> 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 Coll > >> em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 > >> 10858513 > > > > I have no problems with em: > >> netstat -ni | head > > > > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs > > Coll em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:46:98 1859370761 0 1709686290 > > 0 0 > > > >> uname -rs > > > > FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p3 > > Against what type of switch? >Probably a linksys judging from his first line in the email Matt
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Matt Douhan wrote:> On Tuesday 10 August 2004 23.44, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Spartak Radchenko wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>>> 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 Coll >>>> em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 >>>> 10858513 >>> >>> I have no problems with em: >>>> netstat -ni | head >>> >>> Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs >>> Coll em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:46:98 1859370761 0 1709686290 >>> 0 0 >>> >>>> uname -rs >>> >>> FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p3 >> >> Against what type of switch? >> > > Probably a linksys judging from his first line in the emailActually, my post mentioned the Linksys ... is Spartak running the same? :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> So, is there a bug in the em device driver that doesn't exist on the fxp0 > devices?I have a bundle of machines with em cards that had problems talking to dumb 10Mbps switches. They work fine with a different 10/100 dumb switch. I hadn't associated the problem with the em cards, as almost all the machines had em cards, so I'd just assumed the 10Mbps switch was sick. I'd tried most combinations of autoneg, or hard wiring the duplex and it didn't help. David.
On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:37 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> 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: >I've had horrible issues with linksys 10baseT hubs and the fxp devices. Same hub worked just fine with 3com and other ethernet cards. I avoid linksys hubs/switches like the plague.
Hi Marc, I'm not subscribed to -net list, so in case you haven't got solution yet, here is some info. On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:28PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> > 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 > Coll > em0 1500 <Link#1> 00:07:e9:05:1b:2e 36915965 10306 28888840 1 > 10858513 > > I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs climbs,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is very typical behaviour when you have one side forced to full-duplex and the other side is in autonegotiation. The side with forced full duplex will experience lots of input error, and the autonegotiation side will see tons of collisions. The later is because autonegotiation side in the absense of autonegotiation bits from the other side will automagically put itself into half-duplex. I see this everytime somebody comes and plugs new server onto the networkr, and it's happens very often. All you need to do is to have either both sides in autoneg or both sides forced into full-duplex 100Mbps.> half-duplex, Collisions climb ... >That's normal - you will always see collisions on half-duplex links. It's not an error, it's just what half-duplex is all about.> 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' ... >Indeed, unmanaged switches tend to have ports set to autonegotiation> So, is there a bug in the em device driver that doesn't exist on the fxp0 > devices? >I've observed behaviour you described with any card I came by, including those using fxp driver. If you know in advance that physical setup is wrong try to fix that first, don't rely on the driver fixing it for you. Hope it helps. /Ilya