On 19 maj 2012, at 17:58, Garry Dolley <gdol...@arpnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0200, Per-Olov SjC6holm wrote: >> >> >> On 19 maj 2012, at 08:11, Garry Dolley <gdol...@arpnetworks.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 01:54:54AM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote: >>>> On 17 maj 2012, at 12:53, Garry Dolley wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 03:19:07AM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:13:30AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote: >>>>>>> On 2012-05-11 04:15, Garry Dolley wrote: >>>>>>>> I now have an amd64 test VM set up, where I installed stock 5.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I ran a lot of traffic over em0 without any timeouts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's expected. 5.0 has been running without issue for me for a long >>>> time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also have been trying several -current kernels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OpenBSD 5.1-current (GENERIC) #205: Wed Mar 28 21:40:45 MDT 2012 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see any em0 timeouts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will continue to try newer ones and report back here... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not just test 5.1? Problems have been reported against 5.1, not >>>>>>> -current. >>>>>> >>>>>> I now have a stock 5.1 test VM set up. >>>>>> >>>>>> OpenBSD 5.1 (GENERIC) #181: Sun Feb 12 09:35:53 MST 2012 >>>>>> dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any timeouts. I grabbed the ports tree via curl several >>>>>> times and have been slaving away at it over SSH. I don't notice >>>>>> anything wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, perhaps this issue does not appear in stock 5.1, but in a newer >>>>>> kernel. I'll try something newer soon... >>>>> >>>>> I have tried the following newer kernels: >>>>> >>>>> bsd.20120330 >>>>> bsd.20120419 >>>>> bsd.20120427 >>>>> bsd.20120516 >>>>> >>>>> I still can't reproduce the problem. >>>>> >>>>> I have disabled mpbios on all these kernels, forgot to mention that. >>>>> >>>>> I will leave this be for now; will pick it up again if any new >>>>> information should arise. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Garry Dolley >>>>> ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181 >>>>> Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions >>>>> Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336 >>>>> Blog http://scie.nti.st >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have a running 4.9 release + patches ( i.e 4.9 stable) working perfect. When >>>> Updated to 5.1 release + patches I have real problems with watchdog timeout >>>> resets on my intel nic:s. Same hardware, but just different OpenBSD version. >>>> >>>> I have tried a bunch of kernels from Stuart Henderson (Broken after 4.9.....). >>>> I have also recompiled the 5.1 stable kernel with most versions of the >>>> if_em.c driver. I have compiled and tried the following... >>>> (note that the userland was 5.1 stable with all kernel tests) >>>> >>>> bsd-5.1-stable >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.249 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.250 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.251 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.252 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.253 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.254 >>>> bsd-5.1-stable_plus_if_em.c-1.263 >>>> >>>> Watchdog timeout resets on all versions..... >>>> >>>> NOTE that the Watchdog timeout reset appears in version 1.249 of if_em.c as >>>> well. And that version is default in 4.9 stable which works fantastic. So if I >>>> haven't done anything totally wrong it must be related to something else in >>>> the kernel. So.... my nic hardware and the kvm bios is the same. And an >>>> if_em.c version that works in 4.9 is tried. ???????? >>>> >>>> >>>> I can see above that you got rid of the problem by testing the same version as >>>> me.. But you use AMD and I use i386. >>>> Also... I have a firewall with 2 nic:s. Often ONE nic works but the other >>>> gives watchdog timeout resets and wont work. >>>> >>>> Any clues? >>> >>> I don't have any clues. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem, >>> even though one customer I have who also upgraded experienced this >>> behavior. They did not do a fresh install (that I'm aware), but >>> upgraded (similar to you). I'm not sure what the previous version >>> was. They have one NIC and I believe run amd64. >>> >>> The only difference that I can see is that on a fresh 5.1 install, >>> there is no issue. But if you upgrade from a previous release, then >>> the issue *might* appear. >>> >>> -- >>> Garry Dolley >>> ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181 >>> Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions >>> Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336 >>> Blog http://scie.nti.st >>> >> >> I have a fresh 5.1 rel plus stable patches. No upgrade... > > What happened before you applied the stable patches? On the fresh > 5.1 release without any changes, that is... > > -- > Garry Dolley > ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181 > Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions > Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336 > Blog http://scie.nti.st That i have not tried.. Per-Olov
