> Am 04.03.2016 um 19:49 schrieb Robert Mustacchi <[email protected]>: > > On 3/4/16 10:13 , Dirk Steinberg wrote: >> >>> Am 04.03.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Robert Mustacchi <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On 3/4/16 8:32 , Dirk Steinberg wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On the older Broadwell NUCs (I218) I was unable to set >>>>>> any MTU higher than 1500. I found that disappointing, >>>>>> but maybe I did something wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The I218 in theory supports jumbo frames. We'll need to work out a bit >>>>> more information about what went wrong. The best starting point is to >>>>> get the output of dladm show-linkprop -p mtu on one of the e1000g's for >>>>> the I218. >>>> >>>> [root@nuc0 ~]# dladm show-phys >>>> LINK MEDIA STATE SPEED DUPLEX DEVICE >>>> e1000g0 Ethernet up 1000 full e1000g0 >>>> [root@nuc0 ~]# dladm show-linkprop -p mtu e1000g0 >>>> LINK PROPERTY PERM VALUE DEFAULT POSSIBLE >>>> e1000g0 mtu rw 1500 1500 1500-9216 >>>> >>>> Setting a higher MTU in a running system does not work >>>> (I read that this is expected, although on Linux this has always worked) >>>> >>>> [root@nuc0 ~]# ifconfig e1000g0 mtu 9000 >>>> ifconfig: setifmtu: SIOCSLIFMTU: e1000g0: Invalid argument >>>> [root@nuc0 ~]# dladm set-linkprop -p mtu=9000 e1000g0 >>>> dladm: warning: cannot set link property ‚mtu' on 'e1000g0': link busy >>> >>> Yes, this is a known limitation with that driver. >>> >>>> So I changed the MTU in the boot-time config in /usbkey/config: >>>> >>>> # underlay_nic is the underlay for SDC fabric networking >>>> underlay_nic=b8:ae:ed:72:8a:17 >>>> underlay0_vlan_id=4 >>>> underlay0_ip=10.88.88.2 >>>> underlay0_netmask=255.255.255.0 >>>> underlay0_mtu=9000 >>>> >>>> But this leads to an error in the boot-up process. >>>> Or do I have to increase the MTU of the physical >>>> e1000g0 as well? Since the untagged e1000g0 >>>> is running the admin network I thought I was >>>> supposed to leave that at 1500… >>> >>> Is this SmartOS or SDC? Is this an SDC headnode? >> >> Well, this WAS supposed to be SDC, but the install failed >> because of the smbios / UUID stuff. So I went back to >> SmartOS. But I kept the setup with admin untagged and all >> other nictags with tagged VLANs. The physical box has >> only one NIC, there is no way around this. > > Okay. Well, part of the problem here is that with a lot of manual config > file editing there's less checking here, especially with SmartOS. Using > nictagadm(1M) will help a little bit with some of this but doesn't cover > everything. > > So every VNIC that's created in SmartOS is defined by a NIC tag. The NIC > tag determines the maximum MTU that we can create a vnic on top of it. > When we start up, we look at all the nic tags defined on a NIC and set > the MTU of the physical device to the maximum of all of them. In this > case, because there's no NIC tag defining the MTU to be 9000, that's why > you're seeing an error. > > I know in your case there's a single port, but this should be fine > presuming that you're running a platform that contains the fix for > OS-5146 (https://smartos.org/bugview/OS-5146 > <https://smartos.org/bugview/OS-5146>).
Yes, I read that and thought I would be safe with my platform version. So I should do: nictagadm update -p mtu=9000 underlay Right? Is there a way to read the mtu property back from nictagadm? Because the output from nictagadm list does not change a bit… Where does nictagadm store the mtu? >> BTW, it would be nice for SmartOS to be less restrictive >> about the admin network and allow that to be a tagged VLAN >> as well. Apart from PXE-booting (which I do not use in this case) >> I see no argument against it and configuring the admin >> VLAN (2 in my case) as untagged on the access port for the >> SmartOS server leads to more pain down the road: >> the normal default VLAN 1 that is the usual customer facing VLAN >> needs to be tagged if the admin VLAN 2 is untagged. >> But adding a VLAN to SmartOS with VLAN-id 1 is not >> supported in SmartOS and gives an error! WFT???!! >> Why can I not use VLAN 1? Is there any way around this? > > I'm not sure why off hand that's the case, but I can certainly > understand why it's frustrating. Can you file a bug about this at > github.com/joyent/smartos-live/issues/ > <http://github.com/joyent/smartos-live/issues/> and we can dig into it? OK, I will try to file a bug report later. The problem is: [root@nuc0 ~]# dladm create-vnic -l e1000g0 -v 1 vlan1 dladm: VLAN over ‚e1000g0' may not use default_tag ID (see dladm(1M)) I cannot find any explanation in the manpage and I do not see any point in this limitation. I currently have a workaround on my switch involving two access ports with VLANs 1 and 11 respectively and BPDUs/loop detection disabled and a patch cable for the hairpin. The hack is so ugly that I should not even talk about it in public… and I would really like to get rid of it. Dirk > Robert > ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
