Just a guess, but have you checked MTU sizes?   Are you using a VSWITCH for
the guests or dedicated OSA?

Scott Rohling

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Bhemidhi, Ashwin <ashw...@ti.com> wrote:

>  Hello all,
>
>
>
> Recently we started noticing on few of our Linux guest that Ethernet frames
> were being delayed up to 25 seconds from the time they were sent to the time
> the guest received them.  The frames are Ethernet LLC keep alive polls
> (layer 2 poll) that are sent by a Cisco SNA switch router every 30 secs.
> Both the router and the Linux guest are in the same LAN.
>
>
>
> Looking at the ethereal traces captured on the guest. During normal
> operation the keep alive Frames are being sent every 30 secs and the z/Linux
> guest responds to the poll with in 60 micro seconds.  But few times we
> noticed that the frames were being delayed up to 25 seconds (total time from
> the previous poll is 30+25) after the router sends the poll frame to the
> time the Linux guest receives them.  This is causing the keep alive timer (
> 9 secs = 1 sec  X 8 retries) to expire and disconnect sessions.  The Linux
> guest eventually receives the frames including the retires all at the same
> but by that time the sessions are dropped the router. It appears that the
> frames are being buffered and are delayed by the guest receives them.
>
>
>
> We for sure know that the router is sending the poll every 30 seconds but
> some were some how the frames were buffered (?) for 25 secs before being
> delivered to the guest.  I am trying to figure at which layer the delay was
> being introduced.  Are there any other traces that I can turn on z/VM to
> diagnose the problem?   Were do I start looking at?
>
>
>
> z/VM LPAR is a small one running 8 guest with 80MB memory and 16MB and 48MB
> vdisk on a z10
>
>
>
> IFL utilization     : 2% X 2 IFLS,
>
> Central Storage  : 95%  768 MB,
>
> XSTORE           : 97%  256MB,
>
> PAGE               : 12% X 2 3390-3 page DASD.
>
>
>
> Paging/Spooling activity: 0/s (most of the times)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ashwin  Bhemidhi
>

Reply via email to