From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:35:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:35:46 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:13997 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:35:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:18:33 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.65-mm1: eth0: Transmit error, Tx status register 90 Message-Id: <20030318191833.317fa459.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030319013042.19266.qmail@linuxmail.org> References: <20030319013042.19266.qmail@linuxmail.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2003 01:46:30.0264 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CDEE780:01C2EDB9] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Felipe Alfaro Solana" wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been benchmarking file copy operations between 2.5.65-mm1 > and 2.4.20-2.51 since I have noticed that transferring files from my > 2.4.20 machine to 2.5.65-mm1 gives an steady 10MBps throughput > but doing the opposite (from 2.5.65-mm1 to 2.4.20) gives me a > mere 3MBps throughput. Is it slow with both scp and NFS? Or just NFS? If just NFS then yes, I see this too. Transferring files 2.5->2.4 over NFS is several times slower than 2.4->2.4 or 2.5->2.5. Quite repeatable. > After transferring a 256MB file using NFS and SCP, I have noticed > several "eth0: Transmit error, Tx status register 90.". I have attached > dmesg output, ioports, iomem, lsmod and lspci. That's a transmit underrun. The PCI/memory system was not able to feed data into the NIC fast enough. Please determine when this started. 2.5.64 would be a good kernel to test because it doesn't have the PCI changes.