That's not going to affect anything at 1G rates.

What is that port linked at on the modem? It's a 10Gbase-T port?

As I explained I would expect to find no way to set that adapter to 1G. It will only link correctly at 10G. That fact it works at all though seems to imply it probably is linked at 10G....

@JKnott said in Netgate 6100 SFP+ connection error rate of 0.0055%. Should I be worried?:

@ChrisJenk said in Netgate 6100 SFP+ connection error rate of 0.0055%. Should I be worried?:

Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Opkts Oerrs Coll
ix1 9000 <Link#6> 90:ec:77:7f:c9:d5 31488071 1452 0 74590982 0 0
ix1 - fe80::%ix1/64 fe80::92ec:77ff:fe7f:c9d5%ix1 1060 - - 98 - -

Is that your WAN or LAN? While there's no problem with jumbo frames on the LAN, assuming other devices can handle them, you shouldn't be sending them to the WAN. PfSense should be sending ICMP too big messages when a jumbo frame tries to leave your LAN. You shouldn't be using jumbo frames on the WAN side, with the possible exception of if you're on Internet2.

It's my LAN and I do use Jumbo frames on that (carefully). However, the jumbo frames are restricted to two VLANs neither of which are configured on the NetGate so those frames should actually never reach the unit. I think that MTU is a hangover from an older config; I will set it back to the default.

However, in my current setup the LAN is now ix0 and it has an MTU of 1500.

Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Opkts **Oerrs** Coll ix0 1500 <Link#5> 90:ec:77:7f:c9:d4 17034814 **387** 0 20616901 0 0 ix0 - fe80::%ix0/64 fe80::92ec:77ff:fe7f:c9d4%ix0 4078 - - 18875 - - ix0 - 10.0.200.0/24 router 8993 - - 22104 - - ix0 - fd00::/64 router 8936 - - 9272 - - ix0 - xxxxxxxxx::/64 router.xxxxxxxxxxxx 0 - - 25628 - - ix0 - yyyyyyyyy::/64 yyyyyyyyyyyyyy::1 0 - - 42 - -

I can't speak for Netgate directly on this, I wasn't involved in that decision.

Personally I prefer Intel because you're not paying for features that pfSense can't use. Both in money and power consumption/heat. In FreeNAS that's different. I imagine they might well use the TCP offloading the Chelsio NICs offer. Though I've never looked into it.

More cooling never hurts!

Steve

@stephenw10
Just to confirm, if anyone else reads this thread and have the same problem.

Installing a 1G transceiver in the SFP+ port on auto negotiation, did solve my problem, and I'm using it as a WAN interface now on 1G speed.

@lnguyen

I actually have two here from different vendors I tried.
One's coded for Cisco and the other's coded for Intel.

This directive was added to the boot loader config file:
hw.ix.unsupported_sfp="1"

After rebooting, when I slide either SFP module into the SFP+ cage, I get an unsupported module error from the kernel.

ix0: Unsupported SFP+ module type was detected.

I remember seeing on the Supermicro documentation that these SFP+ ports are not multimode and only support SFP+ modules.