Re: igc problems with heavy traffic
- In reply to: mike tancsa : "Re: igc problems with heavy traffic"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:09:03 UTC
On 8/10/2022 2:14 PM, mike tancsa wrote: > On 8/10/2022 1:47 PM, Pieper, Jeffrey E wrote: >> >> You could try disabling EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet). Something >> like: sysctl dev.igc.0.eee_control=0. > > > Adding > > hw.igc.eee_setting=0 > > in /boot/loader.conf seems to take ok and the NIC works on bootup. I > will run some stress tests with it set. Thanks! > I tried with just that setting and not adjusting the FC and still got the link bounce fairly quickly on the 2.5G xover connection. I was using cat 5 but changed the cable to cat 6 to see if that makes a difference. Re-running the test now with cat 6 I setup 4 servers A----B----C----D A and D are just 2 random servers. B & C are the 2 machines with the 4 igc NICs. B &C and linked on igc1 via xover and A & D were on xover cable to igc2 of B &C 192.168.20.2 ---------- 192.168.20.1 192.168.21.1--------------192.168.21.2 10.1.255.209 -----10.1.255.168 Other odd thing I noticed was when I rebooted and set the eee settings to 0 I lost the link between 21.1 and 21.2 on igc2. Whats odd however is that if I change it so that they both go through a switch instead of xover cable, there does not seem to be a problem with the link. Same cable to the switch seems fine so not sure if something else is going on at the link layer. Only the link between the 2 igc nics is 2.5 G and thats still on xover. I am running iperf3 between 192.168.20.2 and 192.168.21.2. ---Mike