Network capture using ethtool points to problem?
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Issuing this:
ethtool -S <network device> | egrep "err|fail"
I get the following errors:
tx_lost_interrupt: 225
rx_alloc_fail: 36297
What is, tx_lost_interrupt and rx_alloc_fail ?
Do these errors indicate a real network problem?
linux networking ethernet
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Issuing this:
ethtool -S <network device> | egrep "err|fail"
I get the following errors:
tx_lost_interrupt: 225
rx_alloc_fail: 36297
What is, tx_lost_interrupt and rx_alloc_fail ?
Do these errors indicate a real network problem?
linux networking ethernet
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Issuing this:
ethtool -S <network device> | egrep "err|fail"
I get the following errors:
tx_lost_interrupt: 225
rx_alloc_fail: 36297
What is, tx_lost_interrupt and rx_alloc_fail ?
Do these errors indicate a real network problem?
linux networking ethernet
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
Issuing this:
ethtool -S <network device> | egrep "err|fail"
I get the following errors:
tx_lost_interrupt: 225
rx_alloc_fail: 36297
What is, tx_lost_interrupt and rx_alloc_fail ?
Do these errors indicate a real network problem?
linux networking ethernet
linux networking ethernet
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
edited 2 days ago
Michael Prokopec
77716
77716
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
asked Dec 5 at 20:37
yael
2,3321956
2,3321956
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Those are NIC- or driver-specific extended statistics, so it would be important to know the type of the network interface used and/or the name of the driver module used with it.
However, at least in kernel version 4.14.85, it looks like the string tx_lost_interrupt appears only in the Intel i40e NIC driver. This seems to be the patch that originally added that statistic to the driver.
It looks like it counts the times a software workaround was applied to a case of a lost hardware interrupt. I could not find any further description, but it looks like a workaround for a NIC hardware bug to me...
rx_alloc_fail, on the other hand, looks like it indicates the number of times the driver failed to allocate a memory buffer for received packet(s). That might indicate that your system is under some amount of memory pressure, and could use more RAM.
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Those are NIC- or driver-specific extended statistics, so it would be important to know the type of the network interface used and/or the name of the driver module used with it.
However, at least in kernel version 4.14.85, it looks like the string tx_lost_interrupt appears only in the Intel i40e NIC driver. This seems to be the patch that originally added that statistic to the driver.
It looks like it counts the times a software workaround was applied to a case of a lost hardware interrupt. I could not find any further description, but it looks like a workaround for a NIC hardware bug to me...
rx_alloc_fail, on the other hand, looks like it indicates the number of times the driver failed to allocate a memory buffer for received packet(s). That might indicate that your system is under some amount of memory pressure, and could use more RAM.
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Those are NIC- or driver-specific extended statistics, so it would be important to know the type of the network interface used and/or the name of the driver module used with it.
However, at least in kernel version 4.14.85, it looks like the string tx_lost_interrupt appears only in the Intel i40e NIC driver. This seems to be the patch that originally added that statistic to the driver.
It looks like it counts the times a software workaround was applied to a case of a lost hardware interrupt. I could not find any further description, but it looks like a workaround for a NIC hardware bug to me...
rx_alloc_fail, on the other hand, looks like it indicates the number of times the driver failed to allocate a memory buffer for received packet(s). That might indicate that your system is under some amount of memory pressure, and could use more RAM.
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Those are NIC- or driver-specific extended statistics, so it would be important to know the type of the network interface used and/or the name of the driver module used with it.
However, at least in kernel version 4.14.85, it looks like the string tx_lost_interrupt appears only in the Intel i40e NIC driver. This seems to be the patch that originally added that statistic to the driver.
It looks like it counts the times a software workaround was applied to a case of a lost hardware interrupt. I could not find any further description, but it looks like a workaround for a NIC hardware bug to me...
rx_alloc_fail, on the other hand, looks like it indicates the number of times the driver failed to allocate a memory buffer for received packet(s). That might indicate that your system is under some amount of memory pressure, and could use more RAM.
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
Those are NIC- or driver-specific extended statistics, so it would be important to know the type of the network interface used and/or the name of the driver module used with it.
However, at least in kernel version 4.14.85, it looks like the string tx_lost_interrupt appears only in the Intel i40e NIC driver. This seems to be the patch that originally added that statistic to the driver.
It looks like it counts the times a software workaround was applied to a case of a lost hardware interrupt. I could not find any further description, but it looks like a workaround for a NIC hardware bug to me...
rx_alloc_fail, on the other hand, looks like it indicates the number of times the driver failed to allocate a memory buffer for received packet(s). That might indicate that your system is under some amount of memory pressure, and could use more RAM.
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
answered 2 days ago
telcoM
15.2k12143
15.2k12143
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486235%2fnetwork-capture-using-ethtool-points-to-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
