Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:36:17 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: egrosbein@rdtc.ru, jfvogel@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, mike@sentex.net Subject: Re: Problem with igb(4) updated to version 2.0.7 Message-ID: <4cf9ef71./9OtjLOA2%2BIV0UUh%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin7hfqqwkudNHhrsyS_O7_-PCXffAWT1N85i31f@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTimWVJhtu8LrZ_tn0Tdr-vs9PmPnW9SjebT7jnyM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik%2B4Ag1HYXDWJvn2fTx6M%2Bpa9o29-A8j6qVRhZ_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikwcRW%2BdqY=NTSbJsr3daEd-8usPo0Rw%2BhA_D-8@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin3%2BbCaXoPxTQsvzmqgtpA1zSY8f17Qh-nqymPw@mail.gmail.com> <201011270946271408828@yahoo.com.cn> <AANLkTikG8RJQw%2Bh1SHZPs1cHGrM%2B3LfniZrdLqVoPVtr@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=YjG40%2BDj7471wyv3aeXGJgoL1GC33iNaypsrW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=LgejYxRXnxLtkvB-Qfp2u%2BtySdriWHfGWPQjL@mail.gmail.com> <20101128081617.GA90332@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <AANLkTinF1fovumkeXxWgaKi_bNiUCnqgWAtdaCaXELzO@mail.gmail.com> <4CF73A2C.7000802@rdtc.ru> <4CF89EE7.8020807@rdtc.ru> <AANLkTi=6N3Rz57YVNF1ZiDGEexnEXWr6oNPz9F=c2GpA@mail.gmail.com> <4CF93A77.30804@rdtc.ru> <4CF9470F.4020709@sentex.net> <4CF947D4.10504@rdtc.ru> <AANLkTin7hfqqwkudNHhrsyS_O7_-PCXffAWT1N85i31f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking > to some of our Linux crew, they recently changed things so it > would shut down the phy, but that doesn't always make everyone > happy either. In particular, depending on the type of switch and how it is configured, it may take 30 seconds or so after link is restored for the switch to do spanning-tree validation before it will start to pass traffic. There may be something to be said for making the driver's behavior configurable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4cf9ef71./9OtjLOA2%2BIV0UUh%perryh>