This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC107.AD0CBA0C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The problem is not so odd. More than one Ethernet "chip" (NIC) works fine with a hub, but has a variety of pronlems with a switch. In fact, I'm struggling with that very problem right now. Intel has admitted to problems with the NT drivers (82559) and switches, and I'm seeing major problems with a switch whenever the driver is set to something OTHER than "auto". I'm using the Intel e100.c driver right now, but I'm told this is NOT a driver problem, but a hardware issue. Intel's "word" for the NT drivers - don't use anything other than auto. -----Original Message----- From: Vernon McPherron [mailto:vernon@grooveauction.com] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 7:45 AM To: linux-eepro100@beowulf.org Subject: [eepro100] Problems at 100fd with eepro100 I've got an odd problem, I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but maybe I could get some help. Not too long ago I was using a 100bt hub. I had no problems. But just the other day I bought a 10/100 switch. When I hooked it up, I found out that I was having SERIOUS problems. The module loaded fine, and I got a link on both the nic and the switch. But when I tried to ping out, I get some crazy nonsense about "Packet Undeliverable". I thought that a bit odd, so I checked out the scyld web site. I didn't really see anything so I decided to upgrade the kernel. I was previously using 2.3.99-pre6, so I patched it to 2.3.99-pre8 hoping that it'd have the latest driver. After rebuilding the kernel, same problem. I've got a SMP machine and thought that might be causing some problems. I checked /proc/interrupts and it seems to be the only one using irq 18. So I first I thought of doing an option=48 to force 100bt full duplex. It gave the same error. But some of the pings did go through. But I had about 95% packet loss. Just to test it, I booted into an older non-smp kernel, and yep... worked ok. Unfortunately I don't want to use just one cpu. Any ideas? -- djVern -- http://www.grooveauction.com _______________________________________________ eepro100 mailing list eepro100@scyld.com http://www.scyld.com/mailman/listinfo/eepro100 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC107.AD0CBA0C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">RE: [eepro100] Problems at 100fd with eepro100 The problem is not so odd. More than one Ethernet = "chip" (NIC) works fine with a hub, but has a variety of = pronlems with a switch. In fact, I'm struggling with that very problem = right now. Intel has admitted to problems with the NT drivers (82559) = and switches, and I'm seeing major problems with a switch whenever the = driver is set to something OTHER than "auto".
I'm using the Intel e100.c driver right now, but I'm = told this is NOT a driver problem, but a hardware issue.
Intel's "word" for the NT drivers - don't = use anything other than auto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon McPherron [mailto:vernon@grooveauction.com= ]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 7:45 AM
To: linux-eepro100@beowulf.org
Subject: [eepro100] Problems at 100fd with = eepro100
I've got an odd problem, I don't know if anyone else = is having the same
problem, but maybe I could get some help.Not too long ago I was using a 100bt hub. I had = no problems. But just
the other day I bought a 10/100 switch. When I = hooked it up, I found out
that I was having SERIOUS problems. The module = loaded fine, and I got a
link on both the nic and the switch. But when = I tried to ping out, I get
some crazy nonsense about "Packet = Undeliverable". I thought that a bit
odd, so I checked out the scyld web site. I = didn't really see anything so
I decided to upgrade the kernel. I was = previously using 2.3.99-pre6, so I
patched it to 2.3.99-pre8 hoping that it'd have the = latest driver. After
rebuilding the kernel, same problem. I've got = a SMP machine and thought
that might be causing some problems. I checked = /proc/interrupts and it
seems to be the only one using irq 18. So I = first I thought of doing an
option=3D48 to force 100bt full duplex. It = gave the same error. But some
of the pings did go through. But I had about = 95% packet loss. Just to
test it, I booted into an older non-smp kernel, and = yep... worked
ok. Unfortunately I don't want to use just one = cpu. Any ideas?-- djVern --
http://www.grooveauction.com
_______________________________________________
------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC107.AD0CBA0C--
eepro100 mailing list
eepro100@scyld.com
http://www.scyld.com/mailman/listinfo/eepro100