As Stuart mentioned, em(4) on top of e1000 proven to be more stable.
Even under higher load.
Vmx starting to misbehave under high load, resulting for ex. with unstable CARP setup.
//mxb
> 25 jan. 2018 kl. 02:40 skrev trondd <trondd@kagu-tsuchi.com>:
>
> On Mon, January 22, 2018 10:47 am, Mik J wrote:
>> Hello Stuart,
>> For me it takes just a few days...
>> I have a crash every 3/4 days maybe (2 crashes so far) and my server does
>> not handle load.
>> Yes I read your reports this morning, although you wrote that there was a
>> combination with snmpd, I have it with nginx on my side.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Le lundi 22 janvier 2018 Ã 10:35:47 UTC+1, Stuart Henderson
>> <stu@spacehopper.org> a écrit :
>>
>> On 2018/01/22 00:22, Mik J wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 21 janvier 2018 Ã 11:48:00 UTC+1, Stuart Henderson
>>> <stu@spacehopper.org> a écrit :
>>> On 2018-01-19, Mik J <mikydevel@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>> I had many kernel panic these past days. This is a 6.2 openbsd VM
>>> running o=
>>>> n esxi 5.5
>>>>
>>>> # grep "<vmxnet3_getbuf>" /tmp/if_vmx.dis
>>>
>>> I've reported a lot of vmxnet3_getbuf panics, nobody seems interested.
>>> I suggest switching to e1000 in the vmx file, this works with the em(4)
>>> driver and has been stable so far.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Stuart,
>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>> I had my VM running for months in version 6.1 and had not problem but I
>>> reinstalled it in
>>> version 6.2 and the problem is happening.
>>> It seems to me that something in version 6.2 is producing the error.
>>> One crash today again
>>
>> I hit this in last April, which was either 6.1 or -current from soon
>> after.
>> It can take weeks to run into it though so bisecting to find a working
>> kernel
>> is futile.
>>
>>
>
> I am running about a dozen 6.2 -stable VMs on ESXi 6.5. I have exactly
> one VM that panics with vmxnet3_getbuf but only when it's being
> snapshotted. And not every time, but usually.
>
> I think once it paniced when I was snapshotting a lot of other VMs in the
> cluster but I don't trust that memory now. I've not seen that again.
>
> Tim.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment