On 12 Jun 2001 12:20:58 -0700, Ken Brownfield wrote:
> Or you could keep your hardware and try the Intel driver, which seems to
> work fine. It only works as a module, though. This might also help
> narrow the issue to a driver vs. card vs. mobo/BIOS/IRQ/APIC/etc issue.
I did that, and it
On 12 Jun 2001 12:20:58 -0700, Ken Brownfield wrote:
Or you could keep your hardware and try the Intel driver, which seems to
work fine. It only works as a module, though. This might also help
narrow the issue to a driver vs. card vs. mobo/BIOS/IRQ/APIC/etc issue.
I did that, and it seems
I would suggest that you use the e100 driver instead of the eepro100 driver.
We switched to the e100 driver from the eepro100 driver, and a number of our
FTP, NFS and rsync (IE: High bandwidth apps) problems went away.
Our system are mostly 6 Proc boxes with 4 gigs of memeory.
--
Jason Murphy
I would suggest that you use the e100 driver instead of the eepro100 driver.
We switched to the e100 driver from the eepro100 driver, and a number of our
FTP, NFS and rsync (IE: High bandwidth apps) problems went away.
Our system are mostly 6 Proc boxes with 4 gigs of memeory.
--
Jason Murphy
David Lang wrote:
>
> I am useing the D-link 4 port card without running into problems
> (admittidly I have not been stressing it much yet)
I was able to get the D-Link to work in half-duplex (100bt), but
not in auto-negotiate or full-duplex mode. (Packets would pass,
but there would be huge
L PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Florin Andrei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 2.2.19: eepro100 and cmd_wait issues
>
> Ken Brownfield wrote:
>
> > OT: does anyone know what the current state of the Tulip driver is and
> > if there is good hardware out th
Ken Brownfield wrote:
> OT: does anyone know what the current state of the Tulip driver is and
> if there is good hardware out there? SMC left Tulip and went through at
> least two other chipsets, so the only Tulip card I could find as of a
> couple of years ago was Digital's. But it was
Or you could keep your hardware and try the Intel driver, which seems to
work fine. It only works as a module, though. This might also help
narrow the issue to a driver vs. card vs. mobo/BIOS/IRQ/APIC/etc issue.
Personally, I've found the EtherExpress hardware and eepro100 driver to
be
On 12 Jun 2001 13:00:41 -0500, John Madden wrote:
>
> kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x70) timedout with(0x70)!
> kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x10) timedout with(0x10)!
I have the same problem, since a long time, with various 2.2 and 2.4
kernels running on a i815 motherboard, with on-board
I'm having trouble on one machine out of about 20 that run with eepro100's.
This one in particular happens to be a dual port. I searched through the
archives for this, but I didn't find any definite solutions (one thread, on
"2.2.18 and laptop problems," provided a patch that doesn't seem to
I'm having trouble on one machine out of about 20 that run with eepro100's.
This one in particular happens to be a dual port. I searched through the
archives for this, but I didn't find any definite solutions (one thread, on
2.2.18 and laptop problems, provided a patch that doesn't seem to make
On 12 Jun 2001 13:00:41 -0500, John Madden wrote:
kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x70) timedout with(0x70)!
kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x10) timedout with(0x10)!
I have the same problem, since a long time, with various 2.2 and 2.4
kernels running on a i815 motherboard, with on-board
Or you could keep your hardware and try the Intel driver, which seems to
work fine. It only works as a module, though. This might also help
narrow the issue to a driver vs. card vs. mobo/BIOS/IRQ/APIC/etc issue.
Personally, I've found the EtherExpress hardware and eepro100 driver to
be
Ken Brownfield wrote:
OT: does anyone know what the current state of the Tulip driver is and
if there is good hardware out there? SMC left Tulip and went through at
least two other chipsets, so the only Tulip card I could find as of a
couple of years ago was Digital's. But it was
Andrei [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.2.19: eepro100 and cmd_wait issues
Ken Brownfield wrote:
OT: does anyone know what the current state of the Tulip driver is and
if there is good hardware out there? SMC left Tulip and went through at
least two other chipsets, so
David Lang wrote:
I am useing the D-link 4 port card without running into problems
(admittidly I have not been stressing it much yet)
I was able to get the D-Link to work in half-duplex (100bt), but
not in auto-negotiate or full-duplex mode. (Packets would pass,
but there would be huge
16 matches
Mail list logo
