From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: large packet loss take2 2.6.31.x Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20091122205054.GA7361@ami.dom.local> References: <81bfc67a0911120546g26627ac5q5860d85f446b29bb@mail.gmail.com> <4AFC5C58.9030207@gmail.com> <81bfc67a0911130825o6d9b93b2he70677157ad889f2@mail.gmail.com> <20091113211640.GA2540@ami.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911180159g45a45675k44ce3f251c6bddea@mail.gmail.com> <20091118135136.GA9224@ff.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911181021n1b969565y4a39b181360b5e92@mail.gmail.com> <20091118201034.GA3060@ami.dom.local> <20091118223851.GA5191@ami.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911221135y300841f2i8e78417600528cd5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Frans Pop , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Caleb Cushing Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81bfc67a0911221135y300841f2i8e78417600528cd5@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 02:35:10PM -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote: > haven't had time to do a test yet. but would it be of any use for you > all for me to throw another nic (it'd be a different driver for sure) > in this box and test that on a problematic kernel? I have some but not > with me. Of course it would be useful. Especially if you find new bugs. ;-) I'm not sure it's the fastest way to diagnose this problem, but if it's not a problem for you... Btw, currently I don't consider this dropping means there has to be a bug. It could be otherwise - a feature... e.g. when a new kernel can transmit faster (then dropping in some other, slower place can happen). Jarek P. > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:10:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 01:21:19PM -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote: > >> > yeah testing it under my known working config first. I'll get back w/ you later. > >> > >> Btw, since dropping at hardware (NIC) level seems more likely to me, > >> could you send 'ethtool eth0', and 'ethtool -S eth0' after such tests > >> (both sides). > > > > Hmm... and 'netstat -s' before and after the test (both sides). > > > > Jarek P. > > > > > > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com