sorry but I have not worked with this for a while now, After some
thoughts I dont think using netgraph will do me any good, because
traffic can still flow through the antennas of the cards.
If you think it would still be useful to see more ddb prompt for other
scenarios I am happy to try and
Hello, Artem.
You wrote 12 января 2011 г., 23:59:58:
I've documented this new tunable in re(4) manpage, as here is no
rgephy(4) manpage.
I wonder if we could make autonegotiation another media option.
This may solve the problem at hand in a more generic way.
It is better way, of course,
Hello, Pyun.
You wrote 13 января 2011 г., 0:32:08:
seemed to address the issue at that time. 1000baseT link always
requires auto-negotiation but too many switches were broken with
auto-negotiation so some switches are forced to use manual media
configuration even in 1000baseT mode. Using
Synopsis: [ixgbe] [patch] MPRC workaround incorrectly applied to 82599
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs-freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jan 13 10:06:05 UTC 2011
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
Old Synopsis: ralink (if_ral) panics the sistem (amd64 freeBSDd 8.X) when in
hostap or adhoc.
New Synopsis: [ral] ralink panics the system (amd64 freeBSDD 8.X) when in
hostap or adhoc.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-amd64-freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Synopsis: [run] [panic] [patch] Workaround for use-after-free panic
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs-freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jan 13 10:07:38 UTC 2011
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
Thank you for your responses.
I'm sorry that I forgot another condition. I need PCMCIA cards for laptops.
Could you recommend any PCMCIA cards with external port supported by FreeBSD
TDMA?
Keiran
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Bernhard Schmidt bschm...@freebsd.orgwrote:
On Thursday, January
Greetings
Both XR2 and CM9 are old card and not supported by TDMA.
I believe there is no option for PCMCIA at all,
for the miniPCI - you can use DCMA-82, Mikrotik R52, anything atheros 5414
and more recent chipsets.
In Sam Leffler's presentations mentioned, that DCMA-82 was used.
//batcilla
I have a server with an Intel X520-LR1 Ethernet card, which is a
10GBase-LR card:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41164
The card contains the Intel 82599ES controller:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41282
pciconf -lv shows:
ix0@pci0:28:0:0:class=0x02 card=0x00068086
I have a server with an Intel X520-LR1 Ethernet card, which is a
10GBase-LR card:
...
The problem is that this card is shown by ifconfig as a 10GBase-SR card:
...
I made a 1-line patch to the 8.2-RC1 code, enclosed below, and now have
ifconfig showing the expected value:
Problem report and
Ok... I got my wires crossed: our first time testing 8.1 on this
particular platform was with a kernel that had ichwd enabled (a new
thing for us) and so when igb started complaining about watchdog we
thought it was related.
We've tested again and clearly the real story is that we're simply
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:59:07PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:32:08PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:20:09PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Freebsd-net.
Thanks to Pyun YongHyeon, who point me at fact, that rgephy(4) used
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:54:29PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Marius.
You wrote 13 ?? 2011 ?., 1:59:07:
Note that even the RealTek supplied driver always triggers an
auto-negotiation when manually setting the media though. However,
at the same time it also comes with tons
The 8.2 latest does have the latest igb, so using that should be
indicative...
Jack
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Charles Owens
cow...@greatbaysoftware.comwrote:
Ok... I got my wires crossed: our first time testing 8.1 on this
particular platform was with a kernel that had ichwd enabled
Hello, Marius.
You wrote 13 января 2011 г., 20:39:25:
Therefore I'd like to commit the following patch (requires sources
from head and stable branches), unless there's an objection or it
doesn't work as expected:
http://people.freebsd.org/~marius/rgephy.c.diff
It doesn't work for me. It
If it has an SFP+, won't the it be LR or SR depending on the type of
SFP+ installed?
The card is *sold* and *advertised* by Intel as a 10GBase-LR card. It
may well be the case that it would also work with a 10GBase-SR SFP+.
I don't have one of these lying around to test, unfortunately. But I
As near as I can tell, the SR version of the X520 is going to be the
same card, only with an SR SFP+ installed.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
If it has an SFP+, won't the it be LR or SR depending on the type of
SFP+ installed?
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
If it has an SFP+, won't the it be LR or SR depending on the type of
SFP+ installed?
The card is *sold* and *advertised* by Intel as a 10GBase-LR card. It
may well be the case that it would also work with a 10GBase-SR SFP+.
I don't have one of these lying around to test, unfortunately.
The problem is that there is no mechanism right now to report on the
fly which optics the adapter actually has. So for the ones that can
differ I had just chosen the most likely value.
If it REALLY bothers you you can change your local code :)
When I get some higher priority issues off my plate
The problem is that there is no mechanism right now to report on the
fly which optics the adapter actually has. So for the ones that can
differ I had just chosen the most likely value.
Yup, guessed as much.
If it REALLY bothers you you can change your local code :)
Which is exactly what I
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:39:25PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:59:07PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:32:08PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:20:09PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Freebsd-net.
So we went back to basics (stock 8.1-RELEASE) and found no issue!We
then added in our kernel mods one by one and ultimately discovered that
device-polling is the culprit (the kernel config was simply GENERIC +
PAE + polling).
Immediately upon running ifconfig igb0 polling the symptoms
On Jan 13, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Charles Owens wrote:
This is very good news overall, in that we can certainly disable polling for
igb. This begs the question, though, as to whether polling is recommended
these days at all for em/igb NICs... or even in general. From other
conversations we've
Polling has seemed to me to be a way around other problems, problems that
these days
no longer exist. I remember back in the FreeBSD 6 days having interrupt
problems which
of course also led to watchdogs. Polling got rid of that. But now there are
dedicated
MULTIPLE interrupts by using MSIX, so
- Original Message
From: Juergen Lock n...@jelal.kn-bremen.de
To: freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org
Cc: moonlightak...@yahoo.ca; freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Sent: Wed, January 12, 2011 12:55:59 PM
Subject: [run] [panic] [patch] Workaround for use-after-free panic
Submitter-Id:
The following reply was made to PR kern/153938; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: PseudoCylon moonlightak...@yahoo.ca
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, n...@jelal.kn-bremen.de
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/153938: [run] [panic] [patch] Workaround for use-after-free
panic
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:47:21
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:27:13PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:39:25PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:59:07PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:32:08PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:20:09PM
Old Synopsis: Intel 10GBase-LR Ethernet card detected as 10GBase-SR
New Synopsis: [ixgbe] Intel 10GBase-LR Ethernet card detected as 10GBase-SR
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs-freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Jan 14 01:27:27 UTC 2011
You should be happy to know, you goaded me into doing a bit of investigation
this afternoon, and I've discovered there is a way to do this on the fly...
So stay tuned, I have some other issues I must handle tomorrow, but shortly
I will update HEAD with updated code that will finally make this
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:24:12AM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:27:13PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:39:25PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:59:07PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:32:08PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Jack Vogel wrote:
Polling has seemed to me to be a way around other problems, problems that
these days
no longer exist. I remember back in the FreeBSD 6 days having interrupt
problems which
of course also led to watchdogs. Polling got rid of that. But now there are
On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:
To quote an earlier post:
Polling mode operation generally performs better when using older 100Mbs
ethernet NICs which do not support interrupt mitigation and various
capabilities like TSO4; gigabit ethernet NICs are smarter hardware and can
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 13, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Charles Owens wrote:
This is very good news overall, in that we can certainly disable polling for
igb. This begs the question, though, as to whether polling is recommended
these days at all for em/igb NICs... or even in
34 matches
Mail list logo
