From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF788635D1 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:20:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B98782B7FF for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:19:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ssl1.xaq.nl (ssl1.xaq.nl [IPv6:2001:985:6a0f:64::24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EE83B2B7F2 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:19:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kakofonix.xaq.nl (kakofonix.utr.xaq.nl [192.168.64.105]) by ssl1.xaq.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DEB67F6B5 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:19:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:19:46 +0200 From: richard lucassen To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com Message-Id: <20200922101946.a1fb99bf577b96b0a2f5f986@lucassen.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1506136562.36294.1595313175981.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> <20200721104154.0f2188d06a622942fddb7cab@lucassen.org> <20200723102253.b991fc7e31f4e92f54a87500@lucassen.org> <8e14f866-ef7a-e7d3-1bb1-36a10ea4f9cb@web.de> <20200723212143.58e743b84615aeb85a031e19@lucassen.org> <20200724160107.a13cc0b2ee356007e3d7b7d9@lucassen.org> <20200725101253.49f10f1ddccf71163b4fe097@lucassen.org> Reply-To: reply5@xaq.nl Organization: XAQ Systems X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.468 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_NONE 0.25 DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the message and the domain has no DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_SOFTFAIL 0.972 SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [xaq.nl] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Problem with Centos 5.X virtio ethernet drivers and last PVE updates X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 08:20:25 -0000 On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:54:54 +0200 Eneko Lacunza via pve-user wrote: > As reported 10 days ago, we have found a e1000e driver hang recently, > after upgrading from PVE 5.4 to 6.2, in an otherwise stable server. > > It could be a driver issue and not a virtio network issue, but we > haven't seen another hang since the one reported. [note] I just moved the images to a new proxmox 6.2.11 environment and the problem remains. An RTL8169 NIC works well -- richard lucassen https://contact.xaq.nl/