ifconfig error--what does it mean?

Texicle · 03-27-2003, 03:15 AM

I've noticed that sometimes my cable internet connection lags big time here at LQ and other sites. Sometimes it's super fast. I have no idea what the cause is. Firstly, I'll start with my NIC according to lspic-v:

Code:

00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: Macronix, Inc. [MXIC] MX987x5 (rev 25)
        Subsystem: Unknown device d910:3105
        Flags: bus master, stepping, medium devsel, latency 80, IRQ 10
        I/O ports at 6400 [size=256]
        Memory at e4000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
        Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled] [size=256K]
        Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2

This uses the tulip module. As per dmesg:

Code:

Linux Tulip driver version 0.9.15-pre9 (Nov 6, 2001)
PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 00:0a.0
tulip0: no phy info, aborting mtable build
eth0: Macronix 98715 PMAC rev 37 at 0x6400, 00:50:BF:D7:A8:F6, IRQ 10.

I don't understand what the "tulip0: no phy info, mtable build" thing is all about, but I suspect it's part of the problem. I checked ifconfig while in X and right after a fresh reboot before doing anything else and this is what I get:

Code:

root@phrankenstein:~# ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:BF:D7:A8:F6  
          inet addr:216.104.117.169  Bcast:255.255.255.255  Mask:255.255.254.0
          UP BROADCAST NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:6644 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:832 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:1
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
          RX bytes:713924 (697.1 Kb)  TX bytes:170765 (166.7 Kb)
          Interrupt:10 Base address:0x6400 

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback  
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 
          RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

I see the error in TX packets and then the carrier:1 thing but have no idea what it's all about. I've got internet connectivity with no problems other than occasional lag time. I'm using Opera 6.11 browser if that matters. When I go to http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest and check out my speed I get the following:

Quote:

Details
Your raw speed was 1898184.6 bits per second which is the same as:
Communications
1.9 megabits per second

Storage
231.7 kilobytes per second

1MB file download
4.4 seconds

This seems pretty quick to me. Any ideas as to what the ifconfig and dmesg errors are about and what I can do to remedy them? Also, are there any config files I can edit to tweak my connection? I checked out the forum here for posts similar to mine and found one from 2001 with ping tests which I tried the tests and on one I got 37% packet loss

Any help is much appreciated.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that when I'm at work on a WinNT box with a slower connection (according to the same bandwidth place it's like 389 kilobits/second), I have no lag time here at LQ while in MS I.E. (dreadful I know, but that's the only browser we're allowed to have if you can imagine that). I noticed too that when I get the rediculous lag time it's while LQ is loading the adverts for www.burstnet.com (Sending request to www.burstnet.com...).

Mara · 03-27-2003, 01:47 PM

37% packet loss? Not good. Try to traceroute (in Windows: tracert) 2 or 3 sites both from work and from home. It's be igreat if done at the same time (but I know it may be hard). Please post the results.

Texicle · 03-27-2003, 02:39 PM

Thanks for the suggestion. I won't be able to do it at the same time unfortunately. Another thing that might cause a problem is at work I'm behind 2 firewalls so I don't know if that will affect anything. I'll do it anyway though to see what happens. Any suggestions on sites?

Also, would you have any idea as to what the "tulip0: no phy info" from dmesg is all about? I did a search in google and found only a few hits. One of them said it was a problem with the module. However, when I first installed the NIC and set up the module, I didn't get this message nor did I get any errors in ifconfig. Thanks again.

Mara · 03-27-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Texicle
Thanks for the suggestion. I won't be able to do it at the same time unfortunately. Another thing that might cause a problem is at work I'm behind 2 firewalls so I don't know if that will affect anything. I'll do it anyway though to see what happens. Any suggestions on sites?

www.linuxquestions.org, something like www.linux.pl (shuld have a nice, long route from your location, I guess) and something really close to you (your city webseite or something similar).

2 firewalls shoudn't affect he results. If pings go, there's no problem.

I can tel you what I need the results for - to see if there's a server/router/anything between you and the sites (for example slow network) that makes the transmission much worser that it could be.

Quote:

Also, would you have any idea as to what the "tulip0: no phy info" from dmesg is all about? I did a search in google and found only a few hits. One of them said it was a problem with the module. However, when I first installed the NIC and set up the module, I didn't get this message nor did I get any errors in ifconfig. Thanks again.

I've found many... It depends much on the kernel you use. In general: there are bugs in many versions of the driver.

Texicle · 03-27-2003, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mara
www.linuxquestions.org, something like www.linux.pl (shuld have a nice, long route from your location, I guess) and something really close to you (your city webseite or something similar).

Sounds good. For fun I tracerouted google.com here at work and it got to 20 hops--quickly. I'll try the same when I get home.

Quote:

2 firewalls shoudn't affect he results. If pings go, there's no problem.

I can tel you what I need the results for - to see if there's a server/router/anything between you and the sites (for example slow network) that makes the transmission much worser that it could be.

So far with the traceroute on google, there was no slowness--even though I'm behind 2 firewalls (and who knows how many routers--I work for a company in Canada on their network, and I'm also part of a vpn for a company in the US so I have no idea how many routers). However, at home I have no router, but it will be interesting to see what the traceroute shows.

Quote:

I've found many... It depends much on the kernel you use. In general: there are bugs in many versions of the driver.

I'm on Slackware 8.1 default kernel 2.4.18. Should I see about getting the "latest and greatest" tulip module and give that a go? Thanks again, BTW.

Texicle · 03-28-2003, 01:01 AM

Here's my traceroute to www.google.com:

Code:

phyx@phrankenstein:~$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute to www.google.com (216.239.57.99), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  10.173.0.1 (10.173.0.1)  5.444 ms  6.731 ms  5.288 ms
 2  L3-SudburyB-HE-Vlan501.personainc.net (24.139.17.9)  5.728 ms  6.086 ms  5.722 ms
 3  24.139.5.10 (24.139.5.10)  6.275 ms  6.563 ms  5.814 ms
 4  ra1sh-pos9-2.mt.bigpipeinc.com (66.244.223.205)  11.342 ms  12.364 ms  11.962 ms
 5  rc1sh-ge10-0.mt.shawcable.net (66.163.66.9)  13.107 ms  12.982 ms  11.764 ms
 6  rc2nr-pos14-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.76.74)  36.169 ms  35.923 ms  36.115 ms
 7  rc1nr-pos15-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.73.129)  35.749 ms  36.279 ms  36.076 ms
 8  rc1ar-pos14-0.ed.shawcable.net (66.163.76.78)  53.018 ms  55.396 ms  54.045 ms
 9  rc1bb-pos12-2.vc.shawcable.net (66.163.76.161)  69.731 ms  68.738 ms  67.742 ms
10  rc2wt-pos2-2.wa.shawcable.net (66.163.76.58)  71.917 ms  70.964 ms  72.300 ms
11  rc1sj-pos1-0.cl.shawcable.net (66.163.76.46)  89.941 ms  90.402 ms  90.288 ms
12  eqixsj-google-gige.google.com (206.223.116.21)  92.596 ms  92.406 ms  90.293 ms
13  216.239.48.210 (216.239.48.210)  90.952 ms  90.587 ms  90.549 ms
14  216.239.48.125 (216.239.48.125)  90.255 ms  90.832 ms  90.382 ms
15  216.239.47.30 (216.239.47.30)  93.068 ms  90.449 ms  90.186 ms
16  216.239.49.93 (216.239.49.93)  89.777 ms  96.157 ms  89.376 ms
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  *
phyx@phrankenstein:~$

I stopped it at the 28th hop as it wasn't going anywhere. When I did the google traceroute at work it stopped at 20 hops.

Here's a traceroute to www.linux.pl:

Code:

phyx@phrankenstein:~$ traceroute www.linux.pl
traceroute to www.linux.pl (217.98.53.5), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  10.173.0.1 (10.173.0.1)  6.578 ms  10.597 ms  5.639 ms
 2  L3-SudburyB-HE-Vlan501.personainc.net (24.139.17.9)  11.142 ms  6.456 ms  7.259 ms
 3  24.139.5.10 (24.139.5.10)  6.380 ms  6.425 ms  6.649 ms
 4  ra1sh-pos9-2.mt.bigpipeinc.com (66.244.223.205)  13.192 ms  12.987 ms  12.261 ms
 5  rc2sh-ge10-0.mt.shawcable.net (66.163.66.17)  12.602 ms  12.046 ms  12.811 ms
 6  rc1ch-pos7-0.il.shawcable.net (66.163.77.14)  24.205 ms  24.034 ms  23.745 ms
 7  rc2ch-pos2-0.il.shawcable.net (66.163.65.2)  23.919 ms  24.541 ms  24.133 ms
 8  ge-1-2-0.r02.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.10.153)  23.758 ms  25.157 ms  24.150 ms
 9  p16-5-0-0.r01.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.220)  24.225 ms p16-3-0-0.r00.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.114)  24.944 ms  25.393 ms
10  p16-1-0-0.r01.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.77)  23.893 ms  23.841 ms p16-2-0-0.r01.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.70)  24.835 ms
11  p1-0.telia.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.9.94)  74.035 ms  77.012 ms  75.109 ms
12  nyk-bb2-pos2-1-0.telia.net (213.248.80.121)  78.621 ms  76.466 ms  74.510 ms
13  kbn-bb2-pos0-2-0.telia.net (213.248.64.45)  163.737 ms  165.142 ms  163.644 ms
14  hbg-bb2-pos0-1-0.telia.net (213.248.64.62)  173.167 ms  169.206 ms  169.899 ms
15  war-b2-pos0-0.telia.net (213.248.64.206)  210.622 ms  445.386 ms  224.206 ms
16  tpsa-01439-war-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.79.234)  268.402 ms  227.707 ms  232.712 ms
17  z.kra-r1.do.war-r1.tpnet.pl (194.204.175.170)  225.578 ms  234.070 ms  393.779 ms
18  z.kat-r1.do.kra-r1.tpnet.pl (194.204.175.131)  259.939 ms  216.141 ms  216.400 ms
19  z.kat-ar3.do.kat-r1.tpnet.pl (195.205.0.158)  280.193 ms  215.095 ms  215.854 ms
20  80.50.21.18 (80.50.21.18)  223.192 ms  221.442 ms  234.128 ms
21  linux.pl (217.98.53.5)  227.648 ms  240.698 ms  224.767 ms
phyx@phrankenstein:~$

This one stopped on it's own. Here's a traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org:
[code]
phyx@phrankenstein:~$ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org
traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (64.179.4.146), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 10.173.0.1 (10.173.0.1) 12.610 ms 6.934 ms 6.926 ms
2 L3-SudburyB-HE-Vlan501.personainc.net (24.139.17.9) 11.525 ms 6.985 ms 7.311 ms
3 24.139.5.10 (24.139.5.10) 7.891 ms 10.729 ms 6.185 ms
4 ra1sh-pos9-2.mt.bigpipeinc.com (66.244.223.205) 11.092 ms 16.095 ms 11.474 ms
5 rc2sh-ge10-0.mt.shawcable.net (66.163.66.17) 11.804 ms 11.512 ms 11.721 ms
6 rc1ch-pos7-0.il.shawcable.net (66.163.77.14) 24.091 ms 24.207 ms 23.779 ms
7 ge-6-1-0.ar3.CHI1.gblx.net (64.215.181.77) 23.728 ms 24.813 ms 23.948 ms
8 pos3-0-2488M.cr2.CHI1.gblx.net (64.215.195.161) 36.233 ms 24.014 ms 23.543 ms
9 pos5-0-2488M.cr2.BOS1.gblx.net (208.49.59.133) 51.265 ms 51.780 ms 52.018 ms
10 so7-0-0-622m.ar2.BOS1.gblx.net (206.132.247.74) 52.257 ms 51.263 ms 52.339 ms
11 Choice-One.s0-1-3-0.ar2.BOS1.gblx.net (64.215.248.2) 60.093 ms 59.831 ms 58.206 ms
12 tr-5-1007-bflo-shasta.choiceone.net (64.65.210.190) 65.215 ms 63.894 ms 62.272 ms
13 * linuxquestions.org (64.179.4.146) 61.641 ms 62.945 ms
phyx@phrankenstein:~$

Again, it stopped on it's own. After doing all these traceroutes back to back, here's a copy of my ifconfig:

Code:

root@phrankenstein:~# ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:BF:D7:A8:F6  
          inet addr:216.104.117.169  Bcast:255.255.255.255  Mask:255.255.254.0
          UP BROADCAST NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:705208 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:6315 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:1
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
          RX bytes:48972831 (46.7 Mb)  TX bytes:940359 (918.3 Kb)
          Interrupt:10 Base address:0x6400 

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback  
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
          RX packets:209 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:209 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 
          RX bytes:12540 (12.2 Kb)  TX bytes:12540 (12.2 Kb)

Any thoughts?

Texicle · 03-28-2003, 01:06 AM

As root, I did a traceroute for google again (without stopping it) and got the following:

Code:

root@phrankenstein:~# traceroute www.google.com
traceroute to www.google.com (216.239.39.99), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  10.173.0.1 (10.173.0.1)  7.188 ms  5.578 ms  5.790 ms
 2  L3-SudburyA-HE-Vlan500.personainc.net (24.139.17.5)  6.276 ms  6.907 ms  5.938 ms
 3  24.139.5.10 (24.139.5.10)  5.980 ms  6.565 ms  6.676 ms
 4  ra1sh-pos9-2.mt.bigpipeinc.com (66.244.223.205)  13.359 ms  12.723 ms  12.035 ms
 5  rc1sh-ge10-0.mt.shawcable.net (66.163.66.9)  11.844 ms  11.512 ms  11.780 ms
 6  rc2nr-pos14-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.76.74)  36.424 ms  37.338 ms  35.582 ms
 7  rc1nr-pos15-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.73.129)  36.331 ms  36.695 ms  35.532 ms
 8  rc1ar-pos14-0.ed.shawcable.net (66.163.76.78)  53.106 ms  53.463 ms  54.010 ms
 9  rc1bb-pos12-2.vc.shawcable.net (66.163.76.161)  69.150 ms  68.890 ms  70.456 ms
10  rc1wh-pos13-0.vc.shawcable.net (66.163.69.66)  68.249 ms  68.002 ms  67.935 ms
11  VLN.Serialx-x-x.GWx.POPx.ALTER.NET (157.130.158.45)  72.425 ms  75.718 ms  71.904 ms
12  0.so-1-0-0.XL2.VAN1.ALTER.NET (152.63.137.134)  71.921 ms  70.865 ms  80.825 ms
13  0.so-7-0-0.TL2.VAN1.ALTER.NET (152.63.138.90)  76.589 ms  71.069 ms  72.299 ms
14  0.so-4-0-0.TL2.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.106)  77.127 ms  77.490 ms  75.593 ms
15  0.so-6-1-0.XL2.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63.107.158)  76.220 ms  81.938 ms  76.390 ms
16  0.so-4-0-0.XR2.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63.107.117)  76.277 ms  97.670 ms  76.864 ms
17  190.ATM6-0.BR1.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63.104.65)  76.103 ms  75.481 ms  75.840 ms
18  acr1-at-2-0-0.Seattle.cw.net (208.172.83.201)  124.151 ms  123.838 ms  124.421 ms
19  acr2-ae0.Seattle.cw.net (208.172.83.46)  121.428 ms  123.016 ms  122.670 ms
20  dcr1-loopback.Washington.cw.net (206.24.226.99)  126.419 ms  127.259 ms  126.783 ms
21  bhr1-pos-0-0.Sterling1dc2.cw.net (206.24.238.34)  129.958 ms bhr1-pos-10-0.Sterling1dc2.cw.net (206.24.238.166)  129.169 ms  128.448 ms
22  csr11-ve241.Sterling2dc3.cw.net (216.109.66.90)  129.762 ms  129.546 ms  129.916 ms
23  218-google-exodusdc.exodus.net (216.109.88.218)  158.692 ms  158.955 ms  158.467 ms
24  216.239.47.46 (216.239.47.46)  162.205 ms  161.553 ms  161.867 ms
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *
root@phrankenstein:~#

I wonder why this time I got more hops?

Mara · 03-28-2003, 04:30 PM

I forgot gogle stops traceroutes... Sorry.
Everything looks nice & fast. And works correctly. I suggest you to upgrade the kernel, it seems for me as a bug...

Quote:

I wonder why this time I got more hops?

Packets can go different ways. When you traceroute a host, you may get a different result every time. It's because Internet hosts use dynamic routing algorithms.

Texicle · 03-28-2003, 05:03 PM

Thanks for the reply Mara. So you think it's the kernel and not the tulip module?

Mara · 03-28-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Texicle
Thanks for the reply Mara. So you think it's the kernel and not the tulip module?

Tulip module. The easiest way to upgrade it is to upgrade the kernel.

It's faster to upgrade only the driver, not the whole kernel - but not easier. If you like your current kernel, upgrade only the driver...

Texicle · 03-31-2003, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mara
Tulip module. The easiest way to upgrade it is to upgrade the kernel. It's faster to upgrade only the driver, not the whole kernel - but not easier. If you like your current kernel, upgrade only the driver...

Thanks for the suggestion. I checked all over the place for a tulip source package and all I can find are RPMs. So I decided to scrap that idea. I'm also happy with the kernel I've got as I've not had any problems thus far (except for this). I've yet to upgrade a kernel, and don't really know if I should or even why I should. I'm not trying to brush off your response as I really appreciate you taking the time to help me, I'm just curious if upgrading the kernel will have any bad effects on my system I've worked so much on getting it the way I'd like it. Basically, if I go with the upgrade, would I have to upgrade most everything else as well? When it comes to the kernel, I'm still wet behind the ears.

Mara · 03-31-2003, 11:03 AM

No, it won't change much (you don't need to recompile/install programs again etc) if you install 2.4.x kernel. Just make sure you insert modules for all your hardware etc.