As Stuart mentioned, em(4) on top of e1000 proven to be more stable. Even under higher load. Vmx starting to misbehave under high load, resulting for ex. with unstable CARP setup.
//mxb > 25 jan. 2018 kl. 02:40 skrev trondd <tro...@kagu-tsuchi.com>: > > On Mon, January 22, 2018 10:47 am, Mik J wrote: >> Hello Stuart, >> For me it takes just a few days... >> I have a crash every 3/4 days maybe (2 crashes so far) and my server does >> not handle load. >> Yes I read your reports this morning, although you wrote that there was a >> combination with snmpd, I have it with nginx on my side. >> >> Regards >> >> Le lundi 22 janvier 2018 à 10:35:47 UTC+1, Stuart Henderson >> <s...@spacehopper.org> a écrit : >> >> On 2018/01/22 00:22, Mik J wrote: >>> Le dimanche 21 janvier 2018 à 11:48:00 UTC+1, Stuart Henderson >>> <s...@spacehopper.org> a écrit : >>> On 2018-01-19, Mik J <mikyde...@yahoo.fr> wrote: >>>> I had many kernel panic these past days. This is a 6.2 openbsd VM >>> running o= >>>> n esxi 5.5 >>>> >>>> # grep "<vmxnet3_getbuf>" /tmp/if_vmx.dis >>> >>> I've reported a lot of vmxnet3_getbuf panics, nobody seems interested. >>> I suggest switching to e1000 in the vmx file, this works with the em(4) >>> driver and has been stable so far. >>> >>> >>> Hello Stuart, >>> Thank you for your answer. >>> I had my VM running for months in version 6.1 and had not problem but I >>> reinstalled it in >>> version 6.2 and the problem is happening. >>> It seems to me that something in version 6.2 is producing the error. >>> One crash today again >> >> I hit this in last April, which was either 6.1 or -current from soon >> after. >> It can take weeks to run into it though so bisecting to find a working >> kernel >> is futile. >> >> > > I am running about a dozen 6.2 -stable VMs on ESXi 6.5. I have exactly > one VM that panics with vmxnet3_getbuf but only when it's being > snapshotted. And not every time, but usually. > > I think once it paniced when I was snapshotting a lot of other VMs in the > cluster but I don't trust that memory now. I've not seen that again. > > Tim. >
