has anyone figured out why the em device 'hangs' for about 30-45 seconds
whenever you ifconfig alias a new IP on to the device?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo
In the last episode (Jun 28), User Freebsd said:
> has anyone figured out why the em device 'hangs' for about 30-45
> seconds whenever you ifconfig alias a new IP on to the device?
The em driver resets the card when you add an IP to it, and unless
you've configured your switch not to autodetect fa
Dan Nelson said the following on 6/28/06 3:52 PM:
In the last episode (Jun 28), User Freebsd said:
has anyone figured out why the em device 'hangs' for about 30-45
seconds whenever you ifconfig alias a new IP on to the device?
The em driver resets the card when you add an IP to it, and unless
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Atanas wrote:
I have some newer machines with 2 Broadcom chips on-board. I plan to
give them a try at some point in the future, but I'm not sure how stable
the bge driver is when compared to fxp and em.
I'm using the bge driver on our new HP servers, and haven't noticed a
Atanas wrote:
Dan Nelson said the following on 6/28/06 3:52 PM:
In the last episode (Jun 28), User Freebsd said:
has anyone figured out why the em device 'hangs' for about 30-45
seconds whenever you ifconfig alias a new IP on to the device?
The em driver resets the card when you add an IP
On Thu, 2006-Jun-29 17:30:07 +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
>For me its IP alias additions take 1 or maybe 2secs, but it is
>noticeable, but really isn't an issue for me.
But it obviously is for Atanas, who has 100's of aliases.
>As far as I have noticed the em driver in 6.1 after being rebuilt is
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2006-Jun-29 17:30:07 +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
For me its IP alias additions take 1 or maybe 2secs, but it is
noticeable, but really isn't an issue for me.
But it obviously is for Atanas, who has 100's of aliases.
In my case, it isn't 100's
Atanas writes:
I have some newer machines with 2 Broadcom chips on-board. I plan to
give them a try at some point in the future, but I'm not sure how stable
the bge driver
For us they have been a problem. Primarily because it causes all kinds of
freezing/crashes when having an IPMI board. I
User Freebsd wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2006-Jun-29 17:30:07 +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
For me its IP alias additions take 1 or maybe 2secs, but it is
noticeable, but really isn't an issue for me.
But it obviously is for Atanas, who has 100's of aliases.
I
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Michael Vince wrote:
The thing that have to ask is if Atanas has 100's why can't he just boot
Freebsd have have them all prebound to the interface at startup, why
would you need to add and remove them constantly by the hundreds during
normal server uptime?
I do restart m
Michael Vince said the following on 6/29/06 8:53 PM:
The thing that have to ask is if Atanas has 100's why can't he just boot
Freebsd have have them all prebound to the interface at startup, why
would you need to add and remove them constantly by the hundreds during
normal server uptime?
I
User Freebsd said the following on 6/29/06 9:29 PM:
The other funny thing about the current em driver is that if you move an
IP to it from a different server, the appropriate ARP packets aren't
sent out to redirect the IP traffic .. recently, someone pointed me to
arping, which has solved my
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Atanas wrote:
A workaround is to power both of the systems down and then power them up.
This however cannot be done remotely and in case there were IP aliases, they
still don't get any traffic.
see 'arping' ... great little tool, solved all my problems as far as
moving a
Francisco Reyes writes:
| Atanas writes:
| > I have some newer machines with 2 Broadcom chips on-board. I plan to
| > give them a try at some point in the future, but I'm not sure how stable
| > the bge driver
|
| For us they have been a problem. Primarily because it causes all kinds of
| freez
Doug Ambrisko writes:
Can you try:
http://www.ambrisko.com/doug/bge_ipmi_3.patch
and see if that helps. I need one minor tweak to it before I can
commit it.
We have a brand new machine getting readied.. Passed along the patch URL to
the tech building the machine.
___
User Freebsd said the following on 6/30/06 1:48 PM:
see 'arping' ... great little tool, solved all my problems as far as
moving around IPs ...
Thanks for the tip, I will try it next time.
I still have many 4.x based machines, and both em issues (the card
reset on each alias and the arp pac
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:28:49PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> User Freebsd said the following on 6/29/06 9:29 PM:
> >
> >The other funny thing about the current em driver is that if you move an
> >IP to it from a different server, the appropriate ARP packets aren't
> >sent out to redirect the IP
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:48:23PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Atanas wrote:
>
> >A workaround is to power both of the systems down and then power them up.
> >This however cannot be done remotely and in case there were IP aliases,
> >they still don't get any traffic.
Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 6/30/06 8:54 PM:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:28:49PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> User Freebsd said the following on 6/29/06 9:29 PM:
> >
> >The other funny thing about the current em driver is that if you move an
> >IP to it from a different server, the appropr
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 06:29:55PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 6/30/06 8:54 PM:
> >On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:28:49PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> > > User Freebsd said the following on 6/29/06 9:29 PM:
> > > >
> > > >The other funny thing about the current em driver
Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/5/06 7:14 PM:
Here is patch generated against RELENG_6.
OK, I just tested that, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Here's what I did:
I commented out the em device from my kernel (a 6-STABLE one from
yesterday) and compiled three if_em kernel
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 01:29:11PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/5/06 7:14 PM:
> >
> >Here is patch generated against RELENG_6.
> >
> OK, I just tested that, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
>
> Here's what I did:
>
> I commented out the em devi
Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/6/06 6:03 PM:
Hmm, that's strange. I've double checked that stock em(4) didn't
generate ARP packets when its addresses were changed. So I made
em(4) generate ARP. Could you see a gratuitous ARP with tcpdump
when you change its address?
I just left a "tcpdu
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/6/06 6:03 PM:
> >
> >Hmm, that's strange. I've double checked that stock em(4) didn't
> >generate ARP packets when its addresses were changed. So I made
> >em(4) generate ARP. Could you see a gratu
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> I just left a "tcpdump -n arp host 10.10.64.40" on a third machine
> sniffing around and tested all em module versions I had (the stock 6.1,
> 6-STABLE and 6-STABLE with your patch), but got silence on all three:
That's odd. I've tested it on CURRE
Robert Watson said the following on 7/7/06 7:17 AM:
> I just left a "tcpdump -n arp host 10.10.64.40" on a third machine >
sniffing around and tested all em module versions I had (the stock
6.1, > 6-STABLE and 6-STABLE with your patch), but got silence on all
three:
That's odd. I've tested it
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Atanas wrote:
Robert Watson said the following on 7/7/06 7:17 AM:
> I just left a "tcpdump -n arp host 10.10.64.40" on a third machine >
sniffing around and tested all em module versions I had (the stock 6.1, >
6-STABLE and 6-STABLE with your patch), but got silence on all
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
I think that I have patched, built and loaded the em(4) kernel module
correctly. After applying the patch there were no rejects, before building
the module I intentionally appended " (patched)" to its version string in
if_em.c, and could see that in dme
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
>
> >>I think that I have patched, built and loaded the em(4) kernel module
> >>correctly. After applying the patch there were no rejects, before
> >>building the module I intentiona
Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
I think that I have patched, built and loaded the em(4) kernel
module correctly. After applying the patch there were no rejects,
before building the module I intentionally appended " (patched)" to
its version string in if_em.c, an
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Michael Vince wrote:
I thought I remember a developer working on the em driver saying just
before 6.1 was released that this reset was needed and couldn't be
avoided to ensure performance of the device to work at its best, I can't
remember his explanation, but this topic ha
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 12:32:55PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
> >
> > >>I think that I have patched, built and loaded the em(4) kernel module
> > >>correctly. After applying th
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:20:01PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 12:32:55PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
> > >
> > > >>I think that I have patc
At 01:20 PM 08/07/2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. Thanks for the insight.
> How about the attached patch?
>
I've been working on this problem for Mike Tancsa about a year ago,
and my fix was naive. I ended up not committing it because I found
that it broke something else, but I don't
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:20 PM 08/07/2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. Thanks for the insight.
> How about the attached patch?
>
I've been working on this problem for Mike Tancsa about a year ago,
and my fix was naive. I ended up not committing it because I found
At 12:06 AM 10/07/2006, User Freebsd wrote:
Not sure what STP is
Spanning Tree Protocol. Having the link go up and down would cause
the switch port to block traffic for a period of time.
---Mike
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing li
Mornin'!
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:11:36AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >Not sure what STP is
>
> Spanning Tree Protocol. Having the link go up and down would cause
> the switch port to block traffic for a period of time.
Of course, any reasonable administrator would configure
interf
At 03:09 AM 10/07/2006, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Of course, any reasonable administrator would configure
interface FastEthernet0/1
spanning-tree portfast
for all ports connected to hosts. (shown syntax is Cisco's).
Yes, its great if you have access to the cisco... Not always p
Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/7/06 8:32 PM:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> Yes -- basically, there are two problems:
>
> (1) A little problem, in which an arp announcement is sent before the link
> has
> settled after reset.
>
> (2) A
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Mornin'!
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:11:36AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Not sure what STP is
Spanning Tree Protocol. Having the link go up and down would cause
the switch port to block traffic for a period of time.
Of course, any reasonable adm
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:55:23PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>
> >Mornin'!
> >
> >On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:11:36AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> >>>Not sure what STP is
> >>
> >>Spanning Tree Protocol. Having the link go up and down would cause
At 04:55 PM 10/07/2006, User Freebsd wrote:
'k, I know nothing about Cisco but do have access to change my
configs (knowing nothing tends to keep me from doing too much
playing) ... what does the above do, exactly?
Spanning tree is there to prevent switch loops as well as allow for
redundan
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 02:56:27PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:55:23PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:11:36AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > >Of course, any reasonable administrator would configure
> > >
> > > interface FastEthernet0/1
> > >
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 01:47:23PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/7/06 8:32 PM:
> >On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes -- basically, there are two problems:
> > >
> > > (1) A little problem, in which an arp announceme
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:21:19PM -0300, User Freebsd wrote:
>
> Any status on this patch being merged in?
>
Because there are so many em(4) users there I'd like to have test
last for one or two more weeks.
--
Regards,
Pyun YongHyeon
___
freebsd-
Any status on this patch being merged in?
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Atanas wrote:
Pyun YongHyeon said the following on 7/7/06 8:32 PM:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> > Yes -- basically, there are two problems:
> > (1) A little problem, in which an arp announce
46 matches
Mail list logo
