From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754442AbYEPG5q (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2008 02:57:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751805AbYEPG5d (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2008 02:57:33 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]:21711 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751471AbYEPG5c (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2008 02:57:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=XLXc5HGdJAfdZw+sNvOyO9iKh8eauVoaHAJPJ43pyt+Bw7LGoHTEjDvBW6nrdlfAyKuO1pVjsDtolzCFIIUhFbsGBgEbsJ1bua9Bj8biQk5HK4eiXnrY8mJPgbPl2LqaNFFPDV1O6EKP9ejhc64MC1n+aI+azi83yqtdO0ElHxY= Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 07:01:02 +0000 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Kingsley Foreman Cc: Patrick McHardy , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NET_SCHED cbq dropping too many packets on a bonding interface Message-ID: <20080516070102.GB3992@ff.dom.local> References: <20080515091216.GA6550@ff.dom.local> <8ECDBB4EB5394859BFFACAAEE3A6EDB0@uglypunk> <482C6040.9030808@trash.net> <20080515182504.GB2936@ami.dom.local> <482C81CC.7000305@trash.net> <20080515184646.GC2936@ami.dom.local> <1A70765F4B30462EB21A3B3A8A442633@uglypunk> <20080516054959.GA3918@ff.dom.local> <05be01c8b71b$cbb0c9e0$f903a33a@SABINE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <05be01c8b71b$cbb0c9e0$f903a33a@SABINE> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:42:18PM +0930, Kingsley Foreman wrote: ... > ok after some playing a bit if i use > > tc qdisc change dev bond0 parent 1: pfifo limit 30 > > the dropped packets go away, im not sure if that is considered normal or > not, however any number under 30 gives me issues. If there are no significant differences in configs between these 2.6.22 and 2.6.24/25 (e.g. things mentionned earlier by Eric) IMHO it's "more than normal", but as I've written it would need a lot of your time and work to check the rason. Jarek P.