Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Am 18.01.17 um 17:38 schrieb Stephan Budach: >> Am 18.01.17 um 17:32 schrieb Dan McDonald: >>> Generally the X540 has had a good track record. I brought up the support >>> for this a long time ago, and it worked

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 18.01.17 um 17:38 schrieb Stephan Budach: Am 18.01.17 um 17:32 schrieb Dan McDonald: Generally the X540 has had a good track record. I brought up the support for this a long time ago, and it worked alright then. I think Dale has an X540 in-house which works fine too (he should confirm

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 18.01.17 um 17:32 schrieb Dan McDonald: Generally the X540 has had a good track record. I brought up the support for this a long time ago, and it worked alright then. I think Dale has an X540 in-house which works fine too (he should confirm this). Some other things to check: * Is your

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Generally the X540 has had a good track record. I brought up the support for this a long time ago, and it worked alright then. I think Dale has an X540 in-house which works fine too (he should confirm this). Some other things to check: * Is your BIOS set to map the PCI-E space into the

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 18.01.17 um 09:01 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 17.01.17 um 23:09 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 17.01.17 um 17:37 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017,

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Thanks for clarifying that. I just checked the cables and they classify as Cat6a and they are from a respectable german vendor, not that this would be any guarantee, but at least they're no bulkware from china. ;) The X540s are either onboard on some Supermicro X10 boards, but also on a genuine

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Am 17.01.17 um 23:09 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Stephan Budach >>> wrote: >>> >>> Am 17.01.17 um 17:37 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> > On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM,

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 17.01.17 um 23:09 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 17.01.17 um 17:37 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi Dale, Am 17.01.17 um 17:22 schrieb Dale Ghent: On

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Am 17.01.17 um 17:37 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Stephan Budach >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dale, >>> >>> Am 17.01.17 um 17:22 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> > On Jan 17,

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:39:49 +0100 Stephan Budach wrote: > The cables are actually specifically purchased cat6 cables. They run about > 2m, not more. It could be tna cables, but I am running a couple of those and > afaik, I only get these issues on these three nodes. I

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 17.01.17 um 17:37 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi Dale, Am 17.01.17 um 17:22 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi guys, I am sorry, but I do have to undig

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > Am 17.01.17 um 17:22 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Stephan Budach >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I am sorry, but I do have to undig this old

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

I'd check your switch, though you're using 10GigBaseT, which shouldn't be as big of a problem. Hmmm, using cat6 or better cables? 5e isn't going to cut it for reliable 10Gig service. Dan ___ OmniOS-discuss mailing list

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Hi Dale, Am 17.01.17 um 17:22 schrieb Dale Ghent: On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi guys, I am sorry, but I do have to undig this old topic, since I do now have three hosts running omniOS 018/020, which show these pesky issues with flapping

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I am sorry, but I do have to undig this old topic, since I do now have three > hosts running omniOS 018/020, which show these pesky issues with flapping > their ixgbeN links on my Nexus FEXes…

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I am sorry, but I do have to undig this old topic, since I do now have three > hosts running omniOS 018/020, which show these pesky issues with flapping > their ixgbeN links on my Nexus FEXes… > >

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Hi guys, I am sorry, but I do have to undig this old topic, since I do now have three hosts running omniOS 018/020, which show these pesky issues with flapping their ixgbeN links on my Nexus FEXes… Does anyone know, if there has any change been made to the ixgbe drivers since 06/2016?

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 03.06.16 um 15:42 schrieb Fábio Rabelo: Hi to all A question: This are the board you used ? https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10DRi-T4_.cfm If so, this board uses Intel X540, and this issue are only with Intel X550 chips ! Fábio Rabelo Yes, this is the board I

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Hi to all A question: This are the board you used ? https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10DRi-T4_.cfm If so, this board uses Intel X540, and this issue are only with Intel X550 chips ! Fábio Rabelo 2016-06-03 10:20 GMT-03:00 Stephan Budach : >

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Hi Dale, Am 17.05.16 um 20:55 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 17, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Stephan Budach 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

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

On May 17, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Stephan Budach 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 PROPERTYPERM

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 11.05.16 um 19:28 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 11, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: I will try to get one node free of all services running on it, as I will have to reboot the system, since I will have to change the ixgbe.conf, haven't I? This is a RSF-1 host,

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On May 11, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: > I will try to get one node free of all services running on it, as I will have > to reboot the system, since I will have to change the ixgbe.conf, haven't I? > This is a RSF-1 host, so this will likely be done over

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 11.05.16 um 16:48 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 11, 2016, at 7:36 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 09.05.16 um 20:43 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On May 11, 2016, at 7:36 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Am 09.05.16 um 20:43 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: >>> >>> Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: > On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 11.05.16 um 14:50 schrieb Stephan Budach: Am 11.05.16 um 13:36 schrieb Stephan Budach: Am 09.05.16 um 20:43 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 11.05.16 um 13:36 schrieb Stephan Budach: Am 09.05.16 um 20:43 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi, I have a

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 09.05.16 um 20:43 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi, I have a strange behaviour where OmniOS

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On May 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: >>> On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a strange behaviour where OmniOS omnios-r151018-ae3141d will break

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Am 09.05.16 um 16:33 schrieb Dale Ghent: On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi, I have a strange behaviour where OmniOS omnios-r151018-ae3141d will break the LACP aggr-link on different boxes, when Intel X540-T2s are involved. It first starts with a

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

> On May 9, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a strange behaviour where OmniOS omnios-r151018-ae3141d will break the > LACP aggr-link on different boxes, when Intel X540-T2s are involved. It first > starts with a couple if link downs/ups on one

[OmniOS-discuss] ixgbe: breaking aggr on 10GbE X540-T2

Hi, I have a strange behaviour where OmniOS omnios-r151018-ae3141d will break the LACP aggr-link on different boxes, when Intel X540-T2s are involved. It first starts with a couple if link downs/ups on one port and finally the link on that port negiotates to 1GbE instead of 10GbE, which