From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thomas A. Oehser" Subject: Re: r8169 locks up in 2.6.16.5 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:43:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20060418004358.GA8967@jupiter.toms.net> References: <20060415204716.GA1755@jupiter.toms.net> <20060416005821.GA9821@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20060416134201.GA2681@jupiter.toms.net> <20060416144354.GA11433@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20060416172639.GA12243@jupiter.toms.net> <20060416195327.GA14173@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20060416225843.GA2274@jupiter.toms.net> <20060417230927.GA8893@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Thomas A. Oehser" , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from jupiter.toms.net ([207.145.105.50]:22223 "EHLO jupiter.toms.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932091AbWDRAoC (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:44:02 -0400 To: Francois Romieu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060417230927.GA8893@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Thanks for the report. It is quite clear. The device is (almost surely) > killed by a rx fifo overflow. Expect a patch shortly. > I wonder why it overflows in the first place though. How much time does > the 170 Mb transfer need ? It is actually about a 30GB transfer, it was just after the first 170Mb that it failed. The command in question is just a simple "nc -l -p 12345|buffer|cpio -iumdB", and the sender may well be able to generate the data faster than the receiving disk can save it, as the sender is a raid-1 mirror and the receiver is a raid-5 array, I would expect the raid-5 write penalty and the raid-1 read speed to make it have to block for most of the transfer. It didn't take long to get that far- um, I think only 2 or 3 minutes before it locked up. -Tom -- May 4, 1970: Alison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, William Schroeder.