Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Chinese I226-V on 23.05.1, problems

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    Hardware
    5
    74
    9.5k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      What's it actually connected to? Can you put a switch between as a test?

      w0wW 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • w0wW
        w0w @stephenw10
        last edited by

        @stephenw10
        Tried 3 different switches. Currently connected to 2.5G dumb zyxel switch, tried 1G some tp-link and 2.5G tp-link. No difference at all.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • w0wW
          w0w @stephenw10
          last edited by w0w

          @stephenw10
          Hmm....
          After six days, something similar happened now on the ix0 interface on the main unit

          Jul 24 02:10:11 	kernel 		ix0: link state changed to UP
Jul 24 02:10:11 	check_reload_status 	480 	Linkup starting ix0
Jul 24 02:10:11 	check_reload_status 	480 	Reloading filter
Jul 24 02:10:11 	php-fpm 	15509 	/rc.linkup: Removing static route for monitor 8.8.8.8 and adding a new route through 199.0.100.1
Jul 24 02:10:11 	php-fpm 	15509 	/rc.linkup: Shutting down Router Advertisement daemon cleanly
Jul 24 02:10:11 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IFACE: Set description "WAN"
Jul 24 02:10:11 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IFACE: Rename interface pppoe0 to pppoe0
Jul 24 02:10:11 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IFACE: Down event
Jul 24 02:10:11 	check_reload_status 	480 	Rewriting resolv.conf
Jul 24 02:10:09 	php-cgi 	1355 	rc.kill_states: rc.kill_states: Removing states for interface pppoe0
Jul 24 02:10:09 	php-cgi 	1355 	rc.kill_states: rc.kill_states: Removing states for IP fe80::a236:9fff:fec3:4a2c%pppoe0/32
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPV6CP: LayerDown
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] error writing len 8 frame to b0: Network is down
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPV6CP: SendTerminateReq #2
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPV6CP: state change Opened --> Closing
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPV6CP: Close event
Jul 24 02:10:09 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IFACE: Removing IPv4 address from pppoe0 failed(IGNORING for now. This should be only for PPPoE friendly!): Can't assign requested address
Jul 24 02:10:09 	check_reload_status 	480 	Rewriting resolv.conf
Jul 24 02:10:09 	php-cgi 	98827 	rc.kill_states: rc.kill_states: Removing states for interface pppoe0
Jul 24 02:10:08 	php-cgi 	98827 	rc.kill_states: rc.kill_states: Removing states for IP xx.yy.21.204/32
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPCP: LayerDown
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] error writing len 8 frame to b0: Network is down
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPCP: SendTerminateReq #4
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPCP: state change Opened --> Closing
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IPCP: Close event
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	[wan] IFACE: Close event
Jul 24 02:10:08 	ppp 	39147 	caught fatal signal TERM
Jul 24 02:10:07 	php-fpm 	15509 	/rc.linkup: DEVD Ethernet detached event for opt1
Jul 24 02:10:07 	php-fpm 	15509 	/rc.linkup: Hotplug event detected for ISP_LAN(opt1) dynamic IP address (4: dhcp)
Jul 24 02:10:05 	kernel 		ix0: link state changed to DOWN
Jul 24 02:10:05 	check_reload_status 	480 	Linkup starting ix0 
Jul 24 01:01:46 	php-cgi 	74734 	notify_monitor.php: Message sent to -@gmail.com OK

          Those two lines in question…

          Jul 24 02:10:05 	kernel 		ix0: link state changed to DOWN
Jul 24 02:10:05 	check_reload_status 	480 	Linkup starting ix0

          Since timestamp is the same…
          check_reload_status I believe that happened later because on ix0 down, is not it? 🙄

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            Do the Suricata logs show it restarting when that happens? In inline mode (netmap) it will bounce the link if the netmap interface is recreated. But that should be on the LAN side....

            w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • w0wW
              w0w @stephenw10
              last edited by w0w

              @stephenw10
              I will clarify and draw your attention to the fact that this is my main or primary unit where igc replaced for test with ix (x550-t2) card. There is nothing in suricata logs. I do not think it's suricata or netmap. It looks more like card or driver or some kernel part failure… or i don't know what else it can be.

              Is there something in the FreeBSD that ix and igc can use at some level?

              Now testing secondary unit igc0 under iperf 100Mbit load, port speed is 2500, switch is placed between test server and igc0 port.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Well the logs show the link bouncing. So either it really did bounce in which case I'd be trying to confirm that from logs in the switch. Or it was a virtual interface of some sort like netmap. The only time I have seen the link bounced by something in software (other than a NIC config change) is when using Snort or Suricata in in-line mode.

                w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • w0wW
                  w0w @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10
                  Well, how can I disable netmap completely?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    Put Suricata in legacy mode. It uses netmap for in-line mode.

                    w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • w0wW
                      w0w @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10
                      I've removed suricata completely, but I still see
                      ix1: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048 in dmesg output for all the cards, is this normal?

                      stephenw10S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • w0wW
                        w0w
                        last edited by

                        I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but at the moment there is a suspicion that there is some kind of dependence between these connection breaks and the netmap, which is built into the kernel, as I understand it, and PPPoE. I can’t imagine what kind of dependence, but if the port is used on 226 as a normal DHCP through a similar connection, as in the case of PPPoE, the link is stable.
                        At the moment, I have replaced both cards on both testlab firewalls with the original Intel X550-T2 running latest firmware.
                        Also I removed the suricata, and we will see if the situation repeats itself next month.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator @w0w
                          last edited by

                          @w0w said in Chinese I226-V on 23.05.1, problems:

                          is this normal?

                          Yes. The driver shows that as available queues when it attaches:

                          ix0: <Intel(R) X553 N (SFP+)> mem 0x80400000-0x805fffff,0x80604000-0x80607fff at device 0.0 on pci9
ix0: Using 2048 TX descriptors and 2048 RX descriptors
ix0: Using 4 RX queues 4 TX queues
ix0: Using MSI-X interrupts with 5 vectors
ix0: allocated for 4 queues
ix0: allocated for 4 rx queues
ix0: Ethernet address: 00:08:a2:12:17:7e
ix0: eTrack 0x8000084b PHY FW V65535
ix0: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048

                          That doesn't mean that netmap itself is in use.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • w0wW
                            w0w
                            last edited by

                            Preliminary information on one of the firewalls — X550-T2 works without problems. If the connection is interrupted, then only from the provider, every known amount of days. Link never going down as it did with igc.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • stephenw10S
                              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                              last edited by

                              Hmm, so the physical link stays up and only the PPPoE is restarted?

                              w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • w0wW
                                w0w @stephenw10
                                last edited by

                                @stephenw10
                                Yes, exactly.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • stephenw10S
                                  stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                  last edited by

                                  Hmm, I have no idea what would cause that on igc but not ix. Unless it's actually the igc link dropping causing PPPoE to reset. I've never seen it on any of our igc NICs but that is the reported symptom from those early igc NICs in Linux or Windows.

                                  w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • w0wW
                                    w0w @stephenw10
                                    last edited by

                                    @stephenw10
                                    Everything is possible. It can be fake i225-v3 or even 226, just something reflashed early 225. Also it can be this buggy pcie hub/switch that is present on 2 port version cards.
                                    But, what is really strange is that when i used it just as DHCP WAN it was also rock stable, the problem remains when PPPoE is used. I don't know. Maybe some hidden bug in the driver

                                    UnoptanioU 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • UnoptanioU
                                      Unoptanio @w0w
                                      last edited by

                                      @w0w
                                      Hello,

                                      what are the 2.5G NICs that definitely work fine with pfsense 2.7.0?

                                      pfSensePlus24.03 2U BareMetal Asrock Industrial IMB-X1314MicroATX
                                      CPU: i7-13700@5.2GHz, RAM:32GB ECC, n°2 Samsung 870EVO SATA 2.5” SSD 1TB (ZFS) Raid1
                                      n°3 Intel i225-LM 2500/1000/100Mbps, n°1 NIC Intel i350-T4V2 10/100/1000 Mbps 4*GLAN, n°1 Intel X520-DA2

                                      w0wW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • stephenw10S
                                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                        last edited by

                                        As far as I know the i225-V rev3 NICs work fine. That's what we have in the 6100 and 4100.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • w0wW
                                          w0w @Unoptanio
                                          last edited by w0w

                                          @Unoptanio
                                          There is i226-V is on the market already, that is claimed as “fixed” version of 225.
                                          But…
                                          https://wccftech.com/intel-releases-new-driver-to-mitigate-i226-i225-ethernet-controller-issues/
                                          This somehow still trial and error…
                                          You can try it anyway, at your own risk. There is no good solution for that amount of money, only if you're going with next level, like 10Gbps Intel cards that have issues as well, but support is a bit better.

                                          UnoptanioU 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • stephenw10S
                                            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                            last edited by

                                            We use that in the 8200 and haven't seen any issues there either. The i226 is significantly more efficient. Uses about half the power IIRC.

                                            UnoptanioU 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • First post
                                              Last post