From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 15 03:55:44 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E0A1065672; Fri, 15 May 2009 03:55:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1848FC15; Fri, 15 May 2009 03:55:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1030118rvb.43 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 20:55:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:date:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rgjPtJQze1OQ3b1gFh94sGlok+B98vfDJtUrAlcHRUU=; b=oL8gNtZglOC5oEZ7z6cu2pg6ezoIBGgUuBD8qYgBDLUtOGGN8BfuvSEhu3Uf/ZYBlY M///4ARfl89j3tqMiFQLX4ANjt312BeaRHIOua0HbuMgXJyi6WWOXSIQYzeaerBj5uo5 mkBRaEN2ZveeWuDjMg/gn4chSqEIS/w0+d9ww= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=vifFd5f1nGlGVGlsYsjgz698kDV6bdN+KJt3p8kyHY/grBmLfSe+pVW07Zlkbkhu6L ieLwIv7bqGO8TdiKhgdTjiZMPUF1D8YvPJWF1ULG4QoYrNHg93YirO3IxKE+tes+PFyE gDp2Bz5WzpcOuXt3JdN3sqnM7nRKEtMwBS+8Q= Received: by 10.141.101.12 with SMTP id d12mr1167051rvm.280.1242359743718; Thu, 14 May 2009 20:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ([114.111.62.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g14sm2197814rvb.22.2009.05.14.20.55.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 14 May 2009 20:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 May 2009 13:04:32 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:04:32 +0900 To: James Tanis Message-ID: <20090515040432.GW65350@michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> <20090514115400.ab14bc9d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <4A0C46DD.5000002@mdchs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0C46DD.5000002@mdchs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Bill Moran , FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: issues with Intel Pro/1000 and 1000baseTX X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 03:55:44 -0000 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:29:17PM -0400, James Tanis wrote: > Bill Moran wrote: > >In response to James Tanis : > > > > > > > >><.. snip ..> > >>Attempting to force 1000baseTX via: > >> > >>ifconfig em1 media 1000baseTX mediaopt full-duplex > >> > >>gets me: > >> > >>status: no carrier > >> > >>After forcing the NIC to go 1000baseTX the LEDs on the backpane are both > >>off. I can only come to the conclusion that this is a driver issue based > >>on previous experience and the simple fact that the end user system is > >>capable of connecting at 1000baseTX. Anybody have any suggestions? I'm > >>hoping I'm wrong. I'd rather not do an in-place upgrade, this is a > >>production system and the main gateway for an entire school, when I do > >>not even know for sure whether this will fix the problem. It's worth it > >>to me though, having a 1000baseTX uplink from the switch would remove a > >>major bottleneck for me. > > > > > >Try forcing on both ends (I assume the Procurve will allow you to do that). > >One thing I've seen consistently is that if you force the speed/duplex on > >one end, the other end will still try to autoneg, and will end up with > >something stupid like 100baseT/half-duplex, or will give up and disable > >the port. > > > Ok, I just did that -- I have now attempted to force 1000baseTX on both > sides and on one side while the other was left auto, all three possible > combinations resulted in the same behavior (no carrier). > >Also, try autoneg on both ends. Make absolutely sure the Procurve is set > >to autoneg. > > > This was the original set up. It is also how I have it set up currently, > it results in 100baseTX full-duplex on both sides. > >Replace the cable. If the cable is marginal, autoneg will downgrade the > >speed to ensure reliability. Use a cable that you know will produce > >1000baseTX because you've tested it on other systems. > > > Well, I don't have any verified working cable of the appropriate length > so I simply switched out the cables for the main server and the backup > server. They are both cat6 cables crimped with cat5e modules by me. For > what reason (bad crimp job?) that seemed to fix the issue. > This is clear indication of cabling issue. PHY of em(4) will try to fix all cabling problem with auto MDI/MDIX/polarity correction. If the PHY couldn't establish a 1000baseT link with link partner it would downshift to 100baseTX as establishing a 1000baseT link was not possible due to cabling problems(probably missing wiring). > Thanks for the advice! > > -- > James Tanis > Technical Coordinator > Computer Science Department > Monsignor Donovan Catholic High School