From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 23 12: 0:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BA337B897 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from slave (doug@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA47415; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n0b.san.rr.com To: Tony Finch Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS server problems on 3.4-S, any interest? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 23 May 2000, Tony Finch wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > > >Hrrrmm... I just took a look at the settings for each card. I did not > >specify full duplex in the fxp0 ifconfig line, since autoselect has > >always worked before. > > Autonegotiation is prone to problems. It only really works if both > ends have the same setting Yes, that's definitely been my experience in the past, so I was pleasantly surprised when this started working properly. I did force everything to full duplex last night, and still got the occasional nfs stall, although I have a new theory to examine. Meanwhile, I did some NIC shopping on line last night, and am I correct in thinking that Intel has dropped the word "Etherexpress" from their name for our beloved fxp card? I saw lots of ads for "Intel Pro 100+" with the 82559 chip, but they didn't say etherexpress. My search of the mail logs certainly indicates that they're the same, but I want to be sure before I plop down the cash. Thanks, Doug -- "Live free or die" - State motto of my ancestral homeland, New Hampshire Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message