tx threshold

ocgltd · 01-07-2007, 12:45 PM

I have a linux firewall (FC5) which routes between 4 different NICs. One of them runs VoIP traffic (eth1) out to the internet (eth3).

I occasionally see the following error in my syslog:

Jan 7 13:32:46 firewall kernel: eth1: increased tx threshold, txcfg 0xd0f01004.

Is this an error? Is it an indication that I should change some parameter(s) on the eth1 NIC?

Along the same line, is there something I can do to optimize performance/flow through these two nics? (I already use wshaper for disq management)

Thanks,
MD

ocgltd · 08-12-2008, 11:44 AM

Still getting this error...would love to hear from anyone on how to fix

blackhole54 · 08-13-2008, 12:26 AM

If you search the Internet for the phrase "increased tx threshold", there are multiple matches. Reviewing these may be helpful. But from what I saw, it looked like yours is the only one to have the word firewall before the word kernel. I have no idea what to make of that.

I did notice that one post I looked at suggested the message might be associated with a Tx error or overrun. Perhaps the kernel is announcing an increase in the size of the Tx buffer? And that hex number is an address?

grepmasterd · 08-13-2008, 12:53 AM

I think 'firewall' is just the hostname of the system (standard syslog format)

my guess is that you have a buggy driver or nic. if you're not experiencing any problems then I wouldn't worry about it. if the logs really bug you, you can try

sudo ethtool -s eth1 msglvl 0x00000000

beyond that, get a new NIC, perhaps.

blackhole54 · 08-13-2008, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grepmasterd

I think 'firewall' is just the hostname of the system (standard syslog format)

Doh!!!

(Ah yes. The Internet. So that when you stick your foot in your mouth everybody can find out about it.

)

That must be nature's way of telling me to get some sleep!

ocgltd · 08-13-2008, 08:52 AM

Yes the system name is firewall. It's a slim mobo with onboard NIC - so replacing it isn't an option.

It seems to work ok, so perhaps I'll just ignore it for now. I had guessed that the default buffer size was inadequate and was overflowing - but now idea how to force it to a higher default.

Thanks