Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > > > I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables > > > over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on > > > immediately. > > > > > > Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That > > > would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which > > > obviously doesn't support full-duplex). > > > > > > (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the > > > old driver, others run the 8139too driver). > > > > Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to > > false assumptions. > > Does the driver control the led on my switch? No, the switch does that. > (My cards just have a "link" led, and a "100Mbps" led) Ah... Mine have an FD indicator. I think - it's a while since I last looked closely enough at the back of the machine to tell :) > I'm not going back to the hub after upgrading just to see the > changeover messages. I'm confident that we're running full-duplex now > on the switch and that that's OK with the switch. I was just wondering > wether this confirmed my suspicion that there was something wrong with > the /duplexicity/. I suppose one machine could have auto-negotiated wrongly - was it a Linux box? I've seen Win2k fail to negotiate the best settings - running HD on a switch - but I haven't seen FD on a hub... James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > James Sutherland wrote: > > > That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub > > > (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). > > > > No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions > > are normal during fast transfers across a hub. > > Why would it completely "not work"? It wouldn't be able to detect collisions, I suspect; you might be able to get data through, though. Not something I've ever wanted to try :-) > As long as the host doesn't have something to send while a recieve is > in progress, everything should work. A friend reports that he spent > lots of time trying to debug a network where "too many" collisions > were happening. Turns out one card was in full-duplex, while the other > side wasn't. On a crossover cable direct between two machines, that would make sense: you would WANT both cards full duplex, but if one ran half duplex instead, it would think it was getting a huge number of collisions when it wasn't... > I benchmarked my old network at 10-12 seconds for a 100Mb > transfer. That sounds indeed as if there isn't a whole lot of > collisions happening. And I can immagine that the acks run into the > next data-packet all the time, so that performance would indeed be > very bad if the card was misconfigured. On the other hand I had one > machine that was taking 180 seconds for the 100Mb transfer. Ouch! Remember each collision only knocks out a few hundred bytes - perhaps 1.5K - so even hundreds of collisions per second only knock a few hundred K/sec off a transfer rate of ten Mbyte/sec or so. > Anyway, I remember fiddling with the eexpress 100 driver, and there > the driver was involved in switching the speeds, and doing some > management of the switchover of full-duplex/half-duplex. I'd expect > some message from the driver if it saw such a change. > > But you're saying that the 8139 chip does it internally, and fully > automatically? Ok. Good. Well, mine do anyway :-) (Except under the Win2k bug, where I needed to force the link to 100 Mbit/sec full duplex...) James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:40:53AM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote: > Why would it completely "not work"? experience maybe. telnet works just fine. a copy would end in a _very_ slow transfer. and if I say slow, I mean a few kbytes/sec. depends on the number of colls as well. besides, what gains are expected with full duplex... aproximately none ? -- Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. -o) http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address /\ Linux 2.2.16 SMP 2x466MHz / 256 MB |on Usenet. _\_v - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
> Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That > would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which > obviously doesn't support full-duplex). Most likely it means they were set to autonegotiate - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > > I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables > > over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on > > immediately. > > > > Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That > > would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which > > obviously doesn't support full-duplex). > > > > (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the > > old driver, others run the 8139too driver). > > Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to > false assumptions. Does the driver control the led on my switch? (My cards just have a "link" led, and a "100Mbps" led) I'm not going back to the hub after upgrading just to see the changeover messages. I'm confident that we're running full-duplex now on the switch and that that's OK with the switch. I was just wondering wether this confirmed my suspicion that there was something wrong with the /duplexicity/. Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables > over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on > immediately. > > Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That > would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which > obviously doesn't support full-duplex). > > (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the > old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to false assumptions. Grab 2.4.1-ac, which includes the latest 8139too, and see what 'dmesg' say about its autonegotiation... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
James Sutherland wrote: > > That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub > > (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). > > No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions > are normal during fast transfers across a hub. Why would it completely "not work"? As long as the host doesn't have something to send while a recieve is in progress, everything should work. A friend reports that he spent lots of time trying to debug a network where "too many" collisions were happening. Turns out one card was in full-duplex, while the other side wasn't. I benchmarked my old network at 10-12 seconds for a 100Mb transfer. That sounds indeed as if there isn't a whole lot of collisions happening. And I can immagine that the acks run into the next data-packet all the time, so that performance would indeed be very bad if the card was misconfigured. On the other hand I had one machine that was taking 180 seconds for the 100Mb transfer. Anyway, I remember fiddling with the eexpress 100 driver, and there the driver was involved in switching the speeds, and doing some management of the switchover of full-duplex/half-duplex. I'd expect some message from the driver if it saw such a change. But you're saying that the 8139 chip does it internally, and fully automatically? Ok. Good. Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables > over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on > immediately. That's what you would expect: they will auto-negotiate full duplex, in the same way they would negotiate 10 or 100 Mbit/sec. > Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? No, that's not possible. They just automatically configured for the best performance available - in this case, full duplex. > That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub > (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions are normal during fast transfers across a hub. James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
8139 full duplex?
Hi All, I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
8139 full duplex?
Hi All, I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: Hi All, I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. That's what you would expect: they will auto-negotiate full duplex, in the same way they would negotiate 10 or 100 Mbit/sec. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? No, that's not possible. They just automatically configured for the best performance available - in this case, full duplex. That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions are normal during fast transfers across a hub. James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
James Sutherland wrote: That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions are normal during fast transfers across a hub. Why would it completely "not work"? As long as the host doesn't have something to send while a recieve is in progress, everything should work. A friend reports that he spent lots of time trying to debug a network where "too many" collisions were happening. Turns out one card was in full-duplex, while the other side wasn't. I benchmarked my old network at 10-12 seconds for a 100Mb transfer. That sounds indeed as if there isn't a whole lot of collisions happening. And I can immagine that the acks run into the next data-packet all the time, so that performance would indeed be very bad if the card was misconfigured. On the other hand I had one machine that was taking 180 seconds for the 100Mb transfer. Anyway, I remember fiddling with the eexpress 100 driver, and there the driver was involved in switching the speeds, and doing some management of the switchover of full-duplex/half-duplex. I'd expect some message from the driver if it saw such a change. But you're saying that the 8139 chip does it internally, and fully automatically? Ok. Good. Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to false assumptions. Grab 2.4.1-ac, which includes the latest 8139too, and see what 'dmesg' say about its autonegotiation... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
Jeff Garzik wrote: On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to false assumptions. Does the driver control the led on my switch? (My cards just have a "link" led, and a "100Mbps" led) I'm not going back to the hub after upgrading just to see the changeover messages. I'm confident that we're running full-duplex now on the switch and that that's OK with the switch. I was just wondering wether this confirmed my suspicion that there was something wrong with the /duplexicity/. Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). Most likely it means they were set to autonegotiate - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:40:53AM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote: Why would it completely "not work"? experience maybe. telnet works just fine. a copy would end in a _very_ slow transfer. and if I say slow, I mean a few kbytes/sec. depends on the number of colls as well. besides, what gains are expected with full duplex... aproximately none ? -- Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. -o) http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address /\ Linux 2.2.16 SMP 2x466MHz / 256 MB |on Usenet. _\_v - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: James Sutherland wrote: That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). No, it would just prevent your card working. Large numbers of collisions are normal during fast transfers across a hub. Why would it completely "not work"? It wouldn't be able to detect collisions, I suspect; you might be able to get data through, though. Not something I've ever wanted to try :-) As long as the host doesn't have something to send while a recieve is in progress, everything should work. A friend reports that he spent lots of time trying to debug a network where "too many" collisions were happening. Turns out one card was in full-duplex, while the other side wasn't. On a crossover cable direct between two machines, that would make sense: you would WANT both cards full duplex, but if one ran half duplex instead, it would think it was getting a huge number of collisions when it wasn't... I benchmarked my old network at 10-12 seconds for a 100Mb transfer. That sounds indeed as if there isn't a whole lot of collisions happening. And I can immagine that the acks run into the next data-packet all the time, so that performance would indeed be very bad if the card was misconfigured. On the other hand I had one machine that was taking 180 seconds for the 100Mb transfer. Ouch! Remember each collision only knocks out a few hundred bytes - perhaps 1.5K - so even hundreds of collisions per second only knock a few hundred K/sec off a transfer rate of ten Mbyte/sec or so. Anyway, I remember fiddling with the eexpress 100 driver, and there the driver was involved in switching the speeds, and doing some management of the switchover of full-duplex/half-duplex. I'd expect some message from the driver if it saw such a change. But you're saying that the 8139 chip does it internally, and fully automatically? Ok. Good. Well, mine do anyway :-) (Except under the Win2k bug, where I needed to force the link to 100 Mbit/sec full duplex...) James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 8139 full duplex?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: I have a bunch of computers with 8139 cards. When I moved the cables over from my hub to my new switch all the "full duplex" lights came on immediately. Would this mean that the driver/card already were in full-duplex? That would explain me seeing way too many collisions on that old hub (which obviously doesn't support full-duplex). (Some machines run 2.2 kernels, others run 2.4 kernels some run the old driver, others run the 8139too driver). Some versions of the driver bork the LED register, which may lead to false assumptions. Does the driver control the led on my switch? No, the switch does that. (My cards just have a "link" led, and a "100Mbps" led) Ah... Mine have an FD indicator. I think - it's a while since I last looked closely enough at the back of the machine to tell :) I'm not going back to the hub after upgrading just to see the changeover messages. I'm confident that we're running full-duplex now on the switch and that that's OK with the switch. I was just wondering wether this confirmed my suspicion that there was something wrong with the /duplexicity/. I suppose one machine could have auto-negotiated wrongly - was it a Linux box? I've seen Win2k fail to negotiate the best settings - running HD on a switch - but I haven't seen FD on a hub... James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
