Apparent fxp regression in FreeBSD 8.4-RC3
Glen Barber
gjb at FreeBSD.org
Fri May 24 03:13:08 UTC 2013
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:03:51PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:21:17PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:09:43PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:18:33PM -0400, Michael L. Squires wrote:
> > > > I've just tested 8.4-RC3 using a different Supermicro 1U box with a fresh
> > > > installation of 8.4-RC3. I had problems with the installation, wouldn't
> > > > boot until I used a Windows 98 FDISK to write a master boot record
> > > > (no idea why; this system uses an Adaptec SATA 1.5 6-channel PCI-X
> > > > board with two
> > > > drives in RAID 1).
> > > >
> > > > Using the em0 interface there are no problems with DHCP; when I
> > > > switch to the fxp0 interface the interface starts going up/down in
> > > > the same manner as reported.
> > > >
> > > > The problem appears associated with "world", not with the kernel (running
> > > > the 8.4 kernel with the 8.3 world does not have this problem).
> > > >
> > > > This motherboard is an X5DPL-iGM with 2 Xeon 2.8GHz CPUs and 4 GB of RAM.
> > > > The other unit (an earlier board) has a Serverworks chipset with a single
> > > > Xeon CPU but also with a 100Mbit Intel Pro100 Ethernet port and a 1000Mbit
> > > > Intel Pro1000 Ethernet port.
> > > >
> > > > This unit isn't doing anything useful, so testing isn't a problem.
> > >
> > > Mike, Yong-Hyeon asked you a very important question which you didn't
> > > answer:
> > >
> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073458.html
> > >
> > > If you assign a static IP address, does fxp0 behave properly?
> > >
> > > I'm also re-adding Yong-Hyeon to the CC list here.
> > >
> >
> > At this point, I am not convinced we have a problem with what will turn
> > out to be 8.4-RELEASE.
> >
> > There have been several attempts to ensure the upgraded version is
> > actually 8.4-RC3 (and again, 'uname -a' is not provided in this
> > email...).
> >
> > I find it very hard to believe that we have exactly one fxp(4) user
> > upgrading to 8.4-*.
> >
> > I'd really like to make sure that this is not an issue that will affect
> > an uncountable number of users, but truthfully, at this point have to
> > consider it a local configuration problem.
>
> I have numerous Supermicro 1U boxes sitting in my garage from closing
> down my hosting organisation back in August 2012. I am certain one or
> two of them have Intel NICs that use fxp(4) -- the problem is that I
> don't know what exact NIC and PHY model they use.
>
> >From what I can tell, there are at least two systems Mike has which
> experience this anomaly. One of those systems' dmesg:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073440.html
>
> The relevant lines start at "fxp0: <Intel 82551 ..." and continue all
> the way down to "pci0:0:8:0: bad VPD cksum, remain 14". I'm not sure if
> the bad VPD checksum message is relevant to the fxp0 device or not.
>
> The 2nd system is mentioned above/in this post:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073530.html
>
> But there's no verbose dmesg etc. for the 2nd system so I don't know if
> it has the same NIC/PHY.
>
My understanding from the start of this thread is that "both" machines
are actually the same machine, but with different combinations of
userland/kernel. (No, not arguing anything - only one person can answer
if my understanding is correct or not.)
> The model of NIC and PHY matters greatly; most users don't seem to
> realise how important this is, they think in terms of "Intel vs.
> Broadcom vs. Realtek".
>
> Output from "pciconf -lvbc", specifically the lines relevant to the fxp0
> device, from both systems, would be highly beneficial.
>
> In the meantime, I'll head down to my garage to see if I can find those
> fxp(4) boxes and see if they're 85551s (I sure hope I haven't pulled the
> CPUs/RAM from them). If I find a match, I can try to reproduce this.
>
It has been quite costly now (time) waiting for information on this
particular issue at this point, unfortunately.
Glen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20130523/3612cbc2/attachment.sig>
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list