On May 17, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Stephan Budach <stephan.bud...@jvm.de> wrote:
> I have checked all of my ixgbe interfaces and they all report that now flow > controll is in place, as you can see: > > root@zfsha01colt:/root# dladm show-linkprop -p flowctrl ixgbe0 > LINK PROPERTY PERM VALUE DEFAULT POSSIBLE > ixgbe0 flowctrl rw no no no,tx,rx,bi > root@zfsha01colt:/root# dladm show-linkprop -p flowctrl ixgbe1 > LINK PROPERTY PERM VALUE DEFAULT POSSIBLE > ixgbe1 flowctrl rw no no no,tx,rx,bi > root@zfsha01colt:/root# dladm show-linkprop -p flowctrl ixgbe2 > LINK PROPERTY PERM VALUE DEFAULT POSSIBLE > ixgbe2 flowctrl rw no no no,tx,rx,bi > root@zfsha01colt:/root# dladm show-linkprop -p flowctrl ixgbe3 > LINK PROPERTY PERM VALUE DEFAULT POSSIBLE > ixgbe3 flowctrl rw no no no,tx,rx,bi > > I then checked the ports on the Nexus switches and found out, that they do > have outbound-flowcontrol enabled, but that is the case on any of those Nexus > ports, including those, where this issue doesn't exist. Optimally you would have flow control turned off on both sides, as the switch still expects the ixgbe NIC to respond appropriately. To be honest, the only time to use ethernet flow control is if you are operating the interfaces for higher-level protocols which do not provide any sort of direct flow control themselves, such as FCoE. If the vast majority of traffic is TCP, leave it to the TCP stack to manage any local congestion on the link. /dale
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OmniOS-discuss mailing list OmniOS-discuss@lists.omniti.com http://lists.omniti.com/mailman/listinfo/omnios-discuss
