From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEyrh-0002qP-2L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:13:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEyre-0006YY-VS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:13:20 -0400 Received: from alpha.arachsys.com ([91.203.57.7]:35477) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEyre-0006Y2-Po for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:13:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:13:16 +0100 From: Chris Webb Message-ID: <20120403081313.GD1283@arachsys.com> References: <20120402153722.GA30499@arachsys.com> <20120403071328.GB27304@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120403071328.GB27304@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Intermittent e1000 failure on qemu-kvm 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Stefan Hajnoczi writes: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Chris Webb wrote: > > We initially saw a problem after an upgrade from 0.15.x to 1.0. > > Perhaps git-bisect(1) can help you track down the change that introduced > this between 0.15 and 1.0. Hi. I attempted this, but the bug is so intermittent and there are so many unrelated red-herring breakages along the branchy path between the two that I had to abandon the effort after a week I'm afraid. It's phenomenally time consuming, unlike any other bug I've tried to bisect. > It sounds like this is not the issue, but are you sure the bridge has > forwarding delay set to 0 or Spanning Tree Protocol disabled? With STP > enabled no traffic will be forwarded by the bridge for a configured > timeout, and depending on the timing of your VM bootup you could see > weird things. You can check with brctl showstp br0. No STP enabled, but the networking is permanently broken on these guests in any case, not just slow to get started. Usually they've been sat there for half an hour or more by the time I get back to the stopped reboot loop, and I left one broken over a weekend without it fixing itself. The network is statically configured, so if it were down temporarily and came back, pings would then start working fine. Cheers, Chris.