Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
> >>>
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>>>
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
>>> 64 bytes from
Hi!
> > I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
> >
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123:
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Kok, Auke wrote:
>>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any
>> chance ?
>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>>> Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance
> ?
> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
>
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Kok, Auke wrote:
>>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've had lots of issues
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> 64 bytes from
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
>>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
>>> difference.
>>> We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior.
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
>> difference.
>> We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior. Not this bad (ie 1
>> second)
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>>
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any
chance ?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've had lots of issues with coalescing
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance
?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've had lots of issues
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior. Not this bad (ie
On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123:
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=71 ttl=56
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123:
20 matches
Mail list logo