From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: e1000 driver and samba Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:02:51 -0700 Message-ID: <46EEB33B.6030305@intel.com> References: <780b6f780709131904j41148fb4p827e87530b15d6e9@mail.gmail.com> <46EAC25B.2060404@intel.com> <780b6f780709141140l1fd586c9p2aa8efe6ed803d38@mail.gmail.com> <46EAF644.1040006@intel.com> <46EC1A00.2000304@katalix.com> <46EC2D5A.7080504@intel.com> <780b6f780709152106q3d7f1042t72126c1be16ed1fd@mail.gmail.com> <46ECB95F.2090100@intel.com> <780b6f780709170942h48df5eb4g5f3d19cdf5ef60de@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Chapman , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: L F Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:3847 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752691AbXIQRDA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:03:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <780b6f780709170942h48df5eb4g5f3d19cdf5ef60de@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org L F wrote: >> To me it suggests that your speed is not full-duplex. Check `ethtool eth0` output >> and see if your link is full duplex or not. also check previous kernel messages >> and see what the e1000 driver posted there for link speed messages (as in "e1000: >> Link is UP speed XXX duplex YYY") > from dmesg: > device eth4 entered promiscuous mode > e1000: eth4: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, > Flow Control: RX/TX > [It looks like the e1000 driver that came in the kernel is Intel(R) > PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-k2 - would there be any > benefit to trying the 7.6.5 from the Intel website again?] > > from ethtool: > beehive:~# ethtool eth4 > Settings for eth4: > Supported ports: [ TP ] > Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full > 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full > 1000baseT/Full > Supports auto-negotiation: Yes > Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full > 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full > 1000baseT/Full > Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes > Speed: 1000Mb/s > Duplex: Full > Port: Twisted Pair > PHYAD: 0 > Transceiver: internal > Auto-negotiation: on > Supports Wake-on: d > Wake-on: d > Current message level: 0x00000007 (7) > Link detected: yes > > As best I can tell, the card is in full duplex mode. > Because of a 'running out of ideas' compulsion I disassembled and > reassembled the machine completely, ran a memory test overnight, > changed the cable AGAIN with a CAT6 of the shortest possible length. The statistic we were looking at _will_ increase when running in half duplex, but if it increases when running in full duplex might indicate a hardware failure. Probably you have fixed the issue with the CAT6 cable. Can you run this new configuration with the old cable? that would eliminate the cable (or not) > That plus samba-3.0.26-1 seem to have cured the disconnects - as a > matter of fact I CAN'T get the machine to disconnect anymore, even > under completely artificial loads (i.e. stress test quality, not > average use) from five clients (I know, that isn't saying much, but it > was failing spectacularly at ONE before, so I figure this may be worth > mentioning). > However, the incorrect file transfer still occurs with large files > (500MB+). My original thought behind the disassembly/reassembly/memory > test was that possibly the issue was hardware related, but I seem to > have eliminated that possiblity. > Further, I checked. There are currently 20+ machines in production > with the same debian distribution and kernel, running on 975X / P965 > boards, all with r8169 drivers, doing RAID5 fileserver duty. They > work. With significant numbers (up to 65) of clients. This one doesn't > want to. I can't help but think it's the NIC/driver combo, but it > seems absurd to me. A single port failure on a switch can also happen, and samba is definately a good test for defective hardware. I cannot rule out anything from the information we have gotten yet. Auke