[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-users] Millions of errors/collisions on physical interface in routed Xen-setup??
"Rustedt, Florian" <Florian.Rustedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX > inet addr:212.XX.XX.XX Bcast:212.XX.XX.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > inet6 addr: xxxx::xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING PROMISC MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:250388860 errors:8180755 dropped:131050 overruns:0 > frame:22483 > TX packets:183684213 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:14726679 txqueuelen:1000 > RX bytes:231736594230 (215.8 GiB) TX bytes:43873538477 (40.8 GiB) > Interrupt:20 Memory:fd7f0000-fd800000 > > Very strange are first the massive collisions, as it is routed and second, > that sending has no errors? How can that be possible? I'd look at netstat -i my first guess would be that you've got a hardware problem (as the tx and rx are done on different pairs, you could have bad wires on the rx pair and good wires on the tx pair.) I see that all the time with non-xen hosts. Cat6 is fairly robust, but it's not bulletproof. And sometimes you get an "A+" data center guy making you network cables who thinks it doesn't matter what order he puts the wires in so long as it is the same on both ends, and it passes the test on his $20 at frys "ethernet tester" uh, also verify you are in full-duplex on the switch and the host; duplex mismatches will kill you, and while auto-detect is pretty good these days, and it's been a while since I've seen a duplex mismatch, but especially if you have old equipment it isn't always perfect. you shouldn't have colisions at all on full-duplex links, even if they are bridged; so something is very wrong there. (you can check duplex with ethtool) here is similar output from a host I have (this is xen-bridge, so peth0 is the physical device rather than eth0. If I'm not wrong, eth0 is the physical device when using network-route.) Now, I get a number of dropped rx packets, but I suspect that is because this is one of the boxes I set up before I believed the 'dedicate a core to the dom0' advice. [lsc@lion ~]$ uptime 01:08:44 up 241 days, 23:21, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 [lsc@lion ~]$ /sbin/ifconfig peth0 peth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:10386801790 errors:0 dropped:42690346 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:11083748615 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:1158571105279 (1.0 TiB) TX bytes:1845366972026 (1.6 TiB) Memory:e8180000-e81a0000 Note, that the box has been up for 2/3rds of a year, and errors and collisions are both 0; this is because the physical switch it is on is a switch, and the connection is full-duplex. of course, the linux bridge that xen uses is also a full-duplex connection. [lsc@lion ~]$ sudo /sbin/ethtool peth0 Settings for peth0: 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: 100Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 1 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on Supports Wake-on: pumbag Wake-on: g Current message level: 0x00000001 (1) Link detected: yes _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |