Re: [Linuxptp-users] High path delay: i219 vs i210?

[Joseph M. <jos...@gm...>]

I did try to disable the EEE feature, but it didn't help. I agree it does
sounds exactly like a EEE feature.

בתאריך יום ו׳, 18 במרץ 2022, 14:33, מאת Vladimir Oltean ‏<ol...@gm...
>:

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:19:24PM +0200, Joseph Matan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't have an answer to your question, but I can share from my
> experience
> > that I'm familiar with this. I even posted a similar question a year or
> so
> > ago.
> > I also tried to open a ticket in Intel Customer Service but nothing good
> > came through.
> > Maybe the e1000e developers community would have an idea (but I didn't
> try
> > to ask there).
> >
> > My problem with the i219 NIC was that with no traffic the path delay was
> > around ~7 or 8 usec (as you mentioned), but in intervals of high load of
> > traffic the path delay decreased significantly to something like 800 nsec
> > (0.8 usec).
> > These significant changes in the path delay between 8 usec to 0.8 usec
> > caused me lots of accurecy troubles... (and I didn't use any switch
> between
> > my master and slave).
> > However, from the tests I was doing, the i210 doesn't suffer from this
> > behaviour.
> > Intel Customer Service didn't know to answer if this is a bug or perhaps
> a
> > feature that can be switched off/on.
> >
> > Hope it helped somehow...
> > Joseph
>
> Not sure if you've exhausted this option with Intel support, but this
> sounds like the typical signature of what Energy Efficient Ethernet
> would do to PTP.
>