On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:31 PM, James Peltier <james_a_pelt...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: James Peltier <james_a_pelt...@yahoo.ca> >> To: misc@openbsd.org >> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 9:51:05 AM >> Subject: Re: em(4) ierrs >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >> > From: James Peltier <james_a_pelt...@yahoo.ca> >> > To: misc@openbsd.org >> > Cc: misc@openbsd.org >> > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 9:46:40 AM >> > Subject: Re: em(4) ierrs >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > >> > > From: Joerg Goltermann <go...@openbsd.org> >> > > To: Andre Keller <a...@list.ak.cx> >> > > Cc: misc@openbsd.org >> > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 12:21:28 AM >> > > Subject: Re: em(4) ierrs >> > > >> > > On 20.09.2010 19:15, Andre Keller wrote: >> > > > Hi >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I have some odd packet loss on a openbsd based router (running >>-current >> > > > as of the beginning of september....) . >> > > > >> > > > The router has 6 physical interfaces (all em, Intel 82575EB), 4 of >>them >> > > > have traffic (about 10-20 Mbps). >> > > >> > > which packet rate do you expect on the interfaces? Do you see >> > > livelocks (systat -b mbuf)? >> > > >> > > - Joerg >> > >> > >> > livelocks are seen on my em interfaces as well. I also have livelocks on >>my >> >> >far >> > >> > less busy bge1 management interface. See below >> > >> > IFACE LIVELOCKS SIZE ALIVE LWM HWM CWM >> > System 256 116 84 >> > 2k 92 504 >> > lo0 >> > em0 29363 2k 37 4 256 37 >> > em1 10174 2k 37 4 256 37 >> > bge0 >> > bge1 4 2k 17 17 512 17 >> > enc0 >> > vlan300 >> > bridge0 >> > pflog0 >> > pflow0 >> >> >> I should mention that these might have been made prior to some recent tuning. >> >> However, for the purpose of following this thread I will keep an eye on it to >>be >> >> sure. >> >> > > I am in bridging mode and I too, am indeed seeing a slow increase in livelocks > on my em0 interfaces. Traffic has been quite low over the past week or so, so > it certainly shouldn't be an issue. The only modifications I have made thus far > are to the net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen bumped to 2048. If you want any other info > please let me know. > > > #sysctl -b mbuf
sure is a funny version of "sysctl" you are using there. > 1 users Load 0.13 0.09 0.08 Tue Sep 21 20:22:30 2010 > > IFACE LIVELOCKS SIZE ALIVE LWM HWM CWM > System 256 98 84 > 2k 74 504 > lo0 > em0 29891 2k 29 4 256 29 > em1 10381 2k 28 4 256 28 > bge0 > bge1 4 2k 17 17 512 17 > enc0 > vlan300 > bridge0 > pflog0 > pflow0 > > > # netstat -m > 100 mbufs in use: > 95 mbufs allocated to data > 1 mbuf allocated to packet headers > 4 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses > 74/1008/6144 mbuf 2048 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 4096 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 8192 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 9216 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 12288 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 16384 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 0/8/6144 mbuf 65536 byte clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 2544 Kbytes allocated to network (6% in use) > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > # > > --- > James A. Peltier james_a_pelt...@yahoo.ca
