Did you say this system is a VM under ESX?
Jack
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Harald Schmalzbauer <
h.schmalzbauer at omnilan.de> wrote:
> Bez?glich Jack Vogel's Nachricht vom 09.01.2015 18:46 (localtime):
> > The tuneable interrupt rate code is not mine, and looking at it
I'm not
> > entirely
> > sure it works. Why are you focused on the interrupt rate anyway, do
you
> have
> > some reason to tie it to the watchdog?
> >
> > You could turn AIM off (enable_aim) and see if that changed anything?
> >
> > It seems most the time problems show up they involve the use of lagg,
if
> you
> > take it out of the mix does the problem go away?
>
> Thanks for your attention!
>
> Unfortunately I can't test anything without lagg(4), this machine is in
> production (with lagg(4) being parent of lots of vlan-interfaces).
> I guess the watchdog timeout is more often reported by people with
> lagg(4) in use for the reason that that's where igb(4) really get's
some
> (peak-)load ;-) Serious, I can't see how lagg(4) should be the culprit
> for watchdog timeots, but stuck interrupts was my first guess.
> Especially since I'm doing the kld-reload-trick to get msi-x working
> inside ESXi (reported 2 years ago that booting FreeBSD initializes the
> passthrough device with some kind of wrong device-type-identifier;
> warmbooting the guest or simply kld-reloading solves this problem, the
> hypervisor then get's the correct device-type-indicator (for using
msi-x)).
> Like mentioned this has been working without any issue for more than one
> year with FreeBSD 9.1.
> I have another machine with kawela cards and similar setup, but without
> load at all. I'll see if I can reproduce the problem there and narrow
it
> down by removing lagg(4).
>
> Is there a way to reset the interface without rebooting the machine? The
> watchdog doesn't really reset the device, it's in non-operating
state
> afterwards. I need to 'ifconfig down' it for bringin lagg(4) back
into
> operational state.
> Some kind of D3D0-state switch for a single address? kldunloading would
> destroy the remaining interface too...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Harry
>
>