From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: e1000 driver and samba Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:51:23 -0700 Message-ID: <46EECCAB.1020103@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> <46EEC152.8090005@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: L F , James Chapman , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:61179 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759532AbXIQSva (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:51:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46EEC152.8090005@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rick Jones wrote: > Kok, Auke wrote: >> L F wrote: >> >>>>>>> tx_deferred_ok: 486 >>>> >>>> this one I wonder about, and might cause delays, I'll have to look >>>> up what it exactly could implicate though. >>> >>> Please do and let me know. samba 3.0.26 helped, but the issue is >>> still there. >> >> >> ok, from the spec: tx_deferred_ok is what is in the DC stats register. >> DC stands >> for "Deferred Count". This initially is meant to track how often the >> TX unit cannot >> send because the medium is busy in a Half-Duplex link state. >> >> 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") > > Shouldn't there then have been at least _some_ collisions reported in > the stats? And perhaps some late collisions? well, from the documentation it sounds like the link was half-duplex, but LF reported that it's not. This then points towards a medium issue (bad cable) and after he replaced the cable, the issue went away (?). I still don't fully grasp the reason why this counter would increment and will investigate possibilities for that. My current suspicion is a physical problem, most likely cable-related. Auke