From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "L F" Subject: Re: e1000 driver and samba Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:58:23 -0400 Message-ID: <780b6f780709171158h1016b6c2kfbc977b4ea7c715c@mail.gmail.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> <46EEB33B.6030305@intel.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: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.188]:5668 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756464AbXIQS6Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:58:24 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1383338rvb for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46EEB33B.6030305@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 9/17/07, Kok, Auke wrote: > 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. Uhm, 'fixed' may be premature: I restarted the machine and with 22 hours uptime I am getting: tx_deferred_ok: 36254 > Can you run this new configuration with the old cable? that would eliminate > the cable (or not) I most certainly can. This seems to have gotten worse by a factor or 100 or more.. so am I to suspect the new cable? > 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. True, but I tried changing the switch ports with little change. Putting a client on the same switch port yielded no errors on the client, although unfortunately I don't have ethtool statistics on XP. The switch, btw, is a fairly generic GS108 from Netgear (there actually are two). LF