On 23 maj 2012, at 16:29, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Per-Olov_Sj=F6holm?=
>> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:27:34 +0200
>>
>> On 23 maj 2012, at 10:14, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>
Problem seems to be found
A change of "int intr_shared_edge;" to "int intr_shared_ed
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Per-Olov_Sj=F6holm?=
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:27:34 +0200
>
> On 23 maj 2012, at 10:14, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> >> Problem seems to be found
> >>
> >> A change of "int intr_shared_edge;" to "int intr_shared_edge = 1;" in
> >> i386/machdep.c plus kernel recom
On 23 maj 2012, at 10:14, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Problem seems to be found
>>
>> A change of "int intr_shared_edge;" to "int intr_shared_edge = 1;" in
>> i386/machdep.c plus kernel recompile solves the problem.
>
> Can you post the dmesg of this "fixed" kernel?
>
Hi
Of course
Th
> Problem seems to be found
>
> A change of "int intr_shared_edge;" to "int intr_shared_edge = 1;" in
> i386/machdep.c plus kernel recompile solves the problem.
Can you post the dmesg of this "fixed" kernel?
On 19 maj 2012, at 20:09, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
> On 19 maj 2012, at 17:58, Garry Dolley wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0200, Per-Olov SjC6holm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 maj 2012, at 08:11, Garry Dolley wrote:
>>>
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 01:54:54AM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm
On 19 maj 2012, at 17:58, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0200, Per-Olov SjC6holm wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 maj 2012, at 08:11, Garry Dolley 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 Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>
>
> On 19 maj 2012, at 08:11, Garry Dolley 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,
On 19 maj 2012, at 08:11, Garry Dolley 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 wr
On 19 maj 2012, at 16:31, Kenneth R Westerback
wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:11:07PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 01:54:54AM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>>
>> I don't have any clues. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem,
>> even though one customer I have who
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:11:07PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 01:54:54AM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>
> 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
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:
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.
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 t
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
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
I've had the same problem with a KVM, maybe worth a note in the install docs?
-- p
>On May 11, 2012, at 19:05, "Per-Olov Sjvholm" wrote:
>
>> On 11 maj 2012, at 11:16, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012/05/11 01:15, Garry Dolley wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Stuart He
On 11 maj 2012, at 11:16, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012/05/11 01:15, Garry Dolley wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, Garry Dolley wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2012-05
I see the same issue on the most recent snapshot. Upgrading to current,
disabling mpbios, and applying mikeb's patch[1] on tech@ and things are
looking a lot better.
bsd.rd has never exhibited this issue for me FWIW
[1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=133665750315650&w=2
On Fri, May 11, 2012 a
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
On 2012/05/11 01:15, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, Garry Dolley wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > >> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
> > >>> It says "
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, Garry Dolley wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> >> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
> >>> It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
> >>
> >>
> >>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, Garry Dolley wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> >> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
> >>> It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
> >>
> >>
> >>
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>>> It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
>>
>>
>> I saw the same on an amd64 VPS from arpnetworks.com. Network was not
>> functi
On 10 maj 2012, at 19:18, mxb wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 09:14 AM, Garry Dolley wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
>>>
>>>
>>> I saw the same on an amd64 VPS fr
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM, mxb wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 09:14 AM, Garry Dolley wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
>>>
>>>
>>> I saw the same on an amd64
On 05/10/2012 09:14 AM, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>>> It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
>>
>>
>> I saw the same on an amd64 VPS from arpnetworks.com. Network was not
>> functio
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:58:30PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
>> It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
>
>
> I saw the same on an amd64 VPS from arpnetworks.com. Network was not
> functional. Backed out. Did not investigate further.
>
>
>
On 2012-05-08 19:08, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
It says "em1: watchdog timeout -- resetting"
I saw the same on an amd64 VPS from arpnetworks.com. Network was not
functional. Backed out. Did not investigate further.
Simon
Hi
I have an OpenBSD 4.9 i386 stable (patched to aug 19 2011) running as virtual
in KVM with VTd (PCI passthrough by using pci-stub) for two intel NICs. It's
running flawless. The KVM host (fully patched Redhat 6.2) have two extra
"Intel PRO/1000 MT (82574L)" that is given out to the OpenBSD virt
29 matches
Mail list logo
