From: Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thockin@hockin.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 (was Re: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:31:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vew1vd03.fsf_-_@amaterasu.srvr.nix> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1138640968.30641.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (Trond Myklebust's message of "Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:09:28 -0500")
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust suggested tentatively:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 16:55 +0000, Nix wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust stipulated:
>> > As a general rule of thumb: if tcpdump/ethereal can see the reply on the
>> > client, then the engine socket should see it too. If tcpdump is indeed
>> > seeing those replies, you should check the RPC code by
>> > setting /proc/sys/sunrpc/rpc_debug to 1.
>>
>> tcpdump is seeing them.
>
> The complete packets, including all fragments?
Will check. Maybe one fragment or something is getting lost
(but if so, it's getting lost terribly *consistently*, as in,
every single time).
>> I *guess* that the `failed to lock transport' is the underlying error...
>> time to add some debugging and find out what task is locking the
>> transport. Back soon, must rebuild the kernel and reboot to clear this
>> lock ;)
>
> Nope. The congestion window is 1 request, and you do indeed appear to
> have one request on the "pending" queue. The problem in the above trace
> is a complete lack of data_ready messages, meaning that the socket is
> never seeing any complete packets come in.
O*kay*. I'll do some tcpdumps on both sides and compare them.
... you are quite right. I'm mounting with an rsize and wsize of 32768
(i.e., the default negotiated between a recent Linux NFS client and
kernel server), and, completely consistently, 31504 bytes are sent and
*only 27208 bytes are received*. This is so consistent that there's no
way that this could be due to network congestion (unless it's getting
jammed up inside the receiving NIC or something: it's an NE2K card and
they're rather crap so maybe the card is just too slow: my determination
to replace the card has just gone up a notch. But nonetheless if it was
getting lost by the card I'd see TCP retransmissions, which `netstat -s'
assures me I do not).
This explains why I don't see a problem with DNS: the number of DNS
packets >27208 bytes can be counted on the fingers of one foot.
Captures are available, but I gathered about half a minute's traffic
so they're quite large (1Mb apiece).
Tim? Any ideas? Is anyone else with this card seeing this problem?
--
`I won't make a secret of the fact that your statement/question
sent a wave of shock and horror through us.' --- David Anderson
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-30 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-28 22:52 2.6.15.1: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII Nix
2006-01-29 1:59 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-29 14:24 ` Nix
2006-01-29 19:56 ` Nix
2006-01-29 20:21 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-29 21:54 ` Nix
2006-01-29 22:02 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-30 16:55 ` Nix
2006-01-30 17:09 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-30 17:31 ` Nix [this message]
2006-01-30 19:03 ` 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 (was Re: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII) thockin
2006-01-30 19:07 ` 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 Nix
2006-01-30 19:32 ` thockin
2006-01-30 19:49 ` Nix
2006-01-30 22:18 ` Nix
2006-01-30 19:36 ` 2.6.15.1: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS(ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII Roger Heflin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87vew1vd03.fsf_-_@amaterasu.srvr.nix \
--to=nix@esperi.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thockin@hockin.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox