>Synopsis: After some time (minutes or seconds) the em0 interface stops
>working
>Category: system
>Environment:
System : OpenBSD 5.7
Details : OpenBSD 5.7-stable (GENERIC.MP) #0: Fri May 1 23:59:46
CEST 2015
r...@t60.schulte.it:/usr/s
On 2015-05-02 00:16:43, Christian Schulte wrote:
> >Synopsis:After some time (minutes or seconds) the em0 interface stops
> >working
> >Category:system
> >Environment:
> System : OpenBSD 5.7
> Details : OpenBSD 5.7-stable (GENERIC.MP) #0: Fri May 1 23:59:46
> CEST 2
Not sure if it will help, but it might be useful to show 'systat mb' and
'sysctl kern.netlivelocks'. You mention updating packages, I've definitely had
systems which have been pretty much flattened with netlivelocks/mitigation
while doing this, perhaps some em(4) don't react very well to this...
% uptime
1:47AM up 8 days, 4:59, 11 users, load averages: 0.34, 0.88, 1.13
% sysctl kern.netlivelocks
kern.netlivelocks=40259
% systat -b mb
10 usersLoad 2.53 1.24 0.68 Sun May 3 01:31:43 2015
IFACE LIVELOCKS SIZE ALIVE LWM HWM CWM
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 02:38:12 -0700
> From: Bryan Linton
>
> The key difference is the following two lines. The first wedged,
> the second unwedged:
> em0 2048 2 2 256 2
> em0 2048 4 2 256 4
>
> It seems like t
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 02:38:12 -0700
> > From: Bryan Linton
> >
> > The key difference is the following two lines. The first wedged,
> > the second unwedged:
> > em0 2048 2 2 256 2
> > em0
On 2015-05-09 17:10:56, Brad Smith wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 02:38:12 -0700
> > > From: Bryan Linton
> > >
> > > The key difference is the following two lines. The first wedged,
> > > the second unwedged:
> > > em0
Brad Smith comstyle.com> writes:
>
> Index: if_em.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/if_em.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.295
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.295 if_em.c
> --- if_em.c 11 Feb 2015 23:21:47 - 1.295
> +++ if_e
On 2015/05/09 17:10, Brad Smith wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 02:38:12 -0700
> > > From: Bryan Linton
> > >
> > > The key difference is the following two lines. The first wedged,
> > > the second unwedged:
> > > em0
On 05/11/15 10:23, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2015/05/09 17:10, Brad Smith wrote:
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 02:38:12 -0700
From: Bryan Linton
The key difference is the following two lines. The first wedged,
the second unwedged:
em0
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:37:19 -0400
> From: Brad Smith
>
> On 05/11/15 10:23, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > If all em(4) need 4 descriptors, would it make more sense to just enforce
> > lwm >= 4? Both from a self-documentation point of view, and to avoid a
> > potential trap if some nic was dis
On 11 May 2015 at 20:38, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:37:19 -0400
>> From: Brad Smith
>>
>> On 05/11/15 10:23, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> > If all em(4) need 4 descriptors, would it make more sense to just enforce
>> > lwm >= 4? Both from a self-documentation point of view, a
12 matches
Mail list logo
