em interfaces supermicro X9SCM-F board

[Sebastian Stach]

Thanks for doing the test.

My conditions are different in that i have a gigabit network.
The only difference in the iperf options is that i'm using
-d (dualmode).

On the weekend i will have time to do a test with the NICs
set to 100MBit.

Sebastian Stach


Am 06.06.2012 um 12:18 schrieb Miroslav Lachman:

> I am running iperf for more than 11 hours without any problem. More than 450GB were transmitted.
> The NIC is connected to old 100Mbps switch and using first port (em0) in shared mode for remote management.
> 
> em0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
> options=4219b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC,VLAN_HWTSO>
>        ether 00:25:90:73:d1:76
>        inet xx.xx.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx
>        media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
>        status: active
> 
> 
> The iperf command on Supermicro side was:
> 
> # iperf -c xx.xx.xx.yy --format k -m -p 999 -t 1800
> 
> 
> The other side (Cisco UCS C200 M2) was:
> 
> # iperf -s -p 999
> 
> Server listening on TCP port 999
> TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [  5] local 94.124.105.117 port 999 connected with 94.124.105.115 port 29787
> [  5]  0.0-1799.8 sec  19.5 GBytes  93.0 Mbits/sec
> [  4] local 94.124.105.117 port 999 connected with 94.124.105.115 port 44792
> [  4]  0.0-1799.9 sec  19.5 GBytes  93.1 Mbits/sec
> [  5] local 94.124.105.117 port 999 connected with 94.124.105.115 port 11327
> [  5]  0.0-1799.9 sec  19.5 GBytes  93.0 Mbits/sec
> 
> Both sides are running FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE amd64
> 
> 
> Let me know if I should run iperf with different options to better simulate your conditions where your NIC hangs.
> 
> Miroslav Lachman