Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Drassinower <scottd@cloud9.net> To: Jin Guojun <jin@george.lbl.gov> Cc: dg@root.com, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel EtherExpress 100+ problems Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980601114341.13300A-100000@earl-grey.cloud9.net> In-Reply-To: <199806011527.IAA23215@george.lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The 2900XL can auto negotiate -- it does so by default. I can force things to 10 or 100 and half or full too, but that shouldn't be necessary. With the switch auto negotiating, it definitely has each port as 100/full. Cisco suggested I add spantree portfast to each port's config so that it will start forwarding packets faster, but that's the only non-default setting that the Cisco is using. Same problem either way. The only problems with the network are with certain types of file operations over nfs, not with everything being broken. -- Scott M. Drassinower scottd@cloud9.net Cloud 9 Consulting, Inc. White Plains, NY +1 914 696-4000 http://www.cloud9.net On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Jin Guojun wrote: > Can your switch do auto-negotiate? > I have a Cisco Catalyst 5000 with two network module, one manual and one auto > negotiate. SMC, 3COM, and Intel NIC are works well on the auto-negotiate module > and work well on the manual-negotiate module if the duplex is matching. > > This is very common problme for 100 BT network between host and switch. > The duplex mode must in agreement between the host and the port on the switch > module. I have heard a tons of such problem around problem. After I told them > to check the duplex status, problem are solved. > > -Jin > > > So the problem that I'm having with NFS will likely occur with a 3Com or > > SMC card as well? There is no workaround at all for this, just deal with > > messed up nfs or run at 10 megabits? > > > > -- > > Scott M. Drassinower scottd@cloud9.net > > Cloud 9 Consulting, Inc. White Plains, NY > > +1 914 696-4000 http://www.cloud9.net > > > > On Sun, 31 May 1998, David Greenman wrote: > > > > > >I've been having some problems with an Intel EtherExpress 100+ card (which > > > >2.2.6-RELEASE is seeing as a 100B card, fwiw) running in 100 megabit mode, > > > >full duplex, to a Cisco Catalyst 2900XL. Running tail or grep on a large > > > >(>10mb) file via NFS from another 2.2.6 machine (with an Intel 100+ too) > > > >will simply freeze the tail or grep process, and it won't die. ps shows > > > >the process in disk wait, even though other operations on the mount will > > > >be fine. > > > > > > > >When I replace the Cisco with a 10 megabit hub, the cards drop to 10 > > > >megabit and half duplex, and there are no nfs problems. > > > > > > > >Cisco said they had some internal docs talking about problems with the > > > >Intel 100B cards running 100 megabit, full duplex, that were cleared up > > > >with the 100+ cards. Intel was completely useless. > > > > > > > >I'm wondering if there is perhaps a problem with the fxp driver in 2.2.6, > > > >or some weird issue with the Cisco. I don't have another 100 megabit > > > >switch laying around, and I really wouldn't want to have to switch from > > > >the Intel cards not knowing what the problem is. All that Cisco could > > > >suggest was different cards or a sniffer to look for more clues. > > > > > > > >Any ideas? This seems pretty weird. > > > > > > There are no known bugs in the fxp driver, but there are plenty of NFS > > > bugs, some of which show up as link speed sensitive race conditions. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980601114341.13300A-100000>