From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 14 16:29:32 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978811065696; Thu, 14 May 2009 16:29:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jtanis@mdchs.org) Received: from mta31.charter.net (mta31.charter.net [216.33.127.82]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DFA8FC24; Thu, 14 May 2009 16:29:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jtanis@mdchs.org) Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta31.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090514162919.GYFN2647.mta31.charter.net@imp11>; Thu, 14 May 2009 12:29:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([24.159.164.66]) by imp11 with charter.net id rUVJ1b0081SGK8805UVJWt; Thu, 14 May 2009 12:29:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0C46DD.5000002@mdchs.org> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:29:17 -0400 From: James Tanis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Moran References: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> <20090514115400.ab14bc9d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20090514115400.ab14bc9d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: issues with Intel Pro/1000 and 1000baseTX X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:29:33 -0000 Bill Moran wrote: > In response to James Tanis : > > > >> <.. snip ..> >> Attempting to force 1000baseTX via: >> >> ifconfig em1 media 1000baseTX mediaopt full-duplex >> >> gets me: >> >> status: no carrier >> >> After forcing the NIC to go 1000baseTX the LEDs on the backpane are both >> off. I can only come to the conclusion that this is a driver issue based >> on previous experience and the simple fact that the end user system is >> capable of connecting at 1000baseTX. Anybody have any suggestions? I'm >> hoping I'm wrong. I'd rather not do an in-place upgrade, this is a >> production system and the main gateway for an entire school, when I do >> not even know for sure whether this will fix the problem. It's worth it >> to me though, having a 1000baseTX uplink from the switch would remove a >> major bottleneck for me. > > > Try forcing on both ends (I assume the Procurve will allow you to do that). > One thing I've seen consistently is that if you force the speed/duplex on > one end, the other end will still try to autoneg, and will end up with > something stupid like 100baseT/half-duplex, or will give up and disable > the port. > Ok, I just did that -- I have now attempted to force 1000baseTX on both sides and on one side while the other was left auto, all three possible combinations resulted in the same behavior (no carrier). > Also, try autoneg on both ends. Make absolutely sure the Procurve is set > to autoneg. > This was the original set up. It is also how I have it set up currently, it results in 100baseTX full-duplex on both sides. > Replace the cable. If the cable is marginal, autoneg will downgrade the > speed to ensure reliability. Use a cable that you know will produce > 1000baseTX because you've tested it on other systems. > Well, I don't have any verified working cable of the appropriate length so I simply switched out the cables for the main server and the backup server. They are both cat6 cables crimped with cat5e modules by me. For what reason (bad crimp job?) that seemed to fix the issue. Thanks for the advice! -- James Tanis Technical Coordinator Computer Science Department Monsignor Donovan Catholic High School