From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mock.com (gw.mock.com [209.157.146.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.mock.com", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD86867D4D for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:21:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [10.253.169.117] (m810f36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.15.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.mock.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5A772962 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:21:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <456B6475.4010109@mock.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:19:33 -0800 From: Jeff Mock MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: PPC440GX ethernet oddities References: <456A641D.7070904@mock.com> <20061127042554.GB26806@gate.ebshome.net> <456B21C3.6040203@mock.com> <20061127201859.GA14806@gate.ebshome.net> In-Reply-To: <20061127201859.GA14806@gate.ebshome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Eugene Surovegin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:34:59AM -0800, Jeff Mock wrote: >> # ./ethtool -S eth0 >> NIC statistics: >> rx_packets: 683430611 >> rx_bytes: 45405076316 >> tx_packets: 1331225622 >> tx_bytes: 2005276384145 >> rx_packets_csum: 683428670 >> tx_packets_csum: 1331224150 >> tx_undo: 0 >> rx_dropped_stack: 80 >> rx_dropped_oom: 0 >> rx_dropped_error: 0 >> [lots more 0's...] >> >> The number of checksum errors seems okay and doesn't really change when >> I plug in the second network connection, but the ring buffer usage still >> increases dramatically. > > Stats look OK. BTW, tx/rx_packets_csum is not a number of checksum > errors, that's a number of packets where driver used hw checksum > acceleration :). > Ah, silly me. Can you tell me where I can find the number of received packets with bad ethernet checksums? I'm still thinking that I might have a little hardware problem that is increasing the bit error rate when I use both ports, ultimately increasing my buffer utilization. thanks, jeff