[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NetXtreme BCM5722 strangeness on Proliant ML115



On 09/07/12 17:44, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:31:46 +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:

On 09/07/12 15:14, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

Despite the small number of dropped packages (26) the total ammount of
received packages is also very low (15.1 MiB), there shouldn't be a
single drop.

Is "dmesg | grep -i eth0" showing any anomaly?



I'll give the code from the broadcom website a wiz...just for the record
here is the status after a few hours of use:

# sudo ifconfig eth0
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:21:5a:d3:d0:0c
            inet addr:192.168.2.10  Bcast:192.168.2.255
            Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::221:5aff:fed3:d00c/64
            Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
            RX packets:14050436 errors:0 dropped:26 overruns:0 frame:2 TX
            packets:3730779 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
            collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
            RX bytes:20348704555 (18.9 GiB)  TX bytes:614582976 (586.1
            MiB) Interrupt:19

That's more reasonable as there are no additional dropped packages but
traffic has increased a lot.

# dmesg | grep eth0
[    1.191804] e100 0000:02:04.0: eth0: addr 0xfafff000, irq 18, MAC addr 00:90:27:b0:0a:7d
[    6.508590] udev[474]: renamed network interface eth1 to eth1-eth0
[    6.532526] udev[470]: renamed network interface eth0 to eth1
[    6.584538] udev[474]: renamed network interface eth1-eth0 to eth0
[   11.677058] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready
[   14.772314] tg3 0000:11:00.0: eth0: Link is up at 1000 Mbps, full duplex
[   14.772319] tg3 0000:11:00.0: eth0: Flow control is on for TX and on for RX
[   14.772698] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready
[   25.520006] eth0: no IPv6 routers present

Beyond the "swaping dance" (eth1 → eth0) the rest looks normal.

I would keep monitoring the interface and the number of dropped packages
for a while, but regardless the backported kernel is working fine, I'd
open a bug report so kernel developers review this.

Greetings,


Here we go...

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681089

--
"Confidence is what you have before you understand a problem" - Woody Allen


Reply to: