From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 15 04:15:19 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 2FE9D1065678 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 04:15:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEFE8FC16 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 04:15:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1033941rvb.43 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:15:18 -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=2THPzJZ6l+DtiCs8fH+5BJvwYLzuP6dlmghe+IOk2pY=; b=gXOYwlTS+W2/L++2EQu5Ouh8CK/lNv4gbrGYx2yDztoArlTlejdte15ENUkP5LF5Vl ngrQVVMtJqoNdRIWtZkRlGpglxugLUvgAktcTXiq3pcCLrXeTvyooXu78uTsFWnyPWqV LaxhZAkHDqfLo5X1ghfKaWuprYAiC9jITKCdk= 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=gyH2apomUeduiJwMfuzAAEfp5d8mZQnWmXBAuG13K6iaS+0jnLh++llPaVsQZ6/kX1 PKnnS8vhRZngWlwAU9JpEkLzN8LqiKfwCYH2Es16PyE4N/guP1txmICi74qZ6yz33lL3 L2s7/xHrKi1YtQnRxdCXvIK/992yoZAEOrK/k= Received: by 10.141.26.19 with SMTP id d19mr1034909rvj.84.1242359038429; Thu, 14 May 2009 20:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ([114.111.62.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21sm2203743rvb.35.2009.05.14.20.43.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 14 May 2009 20:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 May 2009 12:52:47 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:52:47 +0900 To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <20090515035247.GV65350@michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> <20090514115400.ab14bc9d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090514115400.ab14bc9d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: James Tanis , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, 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 04:15:19 -0000 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:54:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to James Tanis : > > > I have a FreeBSD v7.0 box it has two Intel Pro/1000 NICs, the one in > > question is: > > > > em1: port > > 0x2020-0x203f mem 0xd8060000-0xd807ffff,0xd8040000-0xd805ffff irq 19 at > > device 0.1 on pci4 > > > > what we get after boot is: > > > > em1: flags=8943 metric 0 > > mtu 1500 > > options=19b > > ether 00:30:48:xx:xx:xx > > inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > > status: active > > > > The problem is that the NIC refuses to connect at 1000baseTX. > > > > It's connected to a HP Procurve 1700-24 switch which supports 1000baseTX > > on ports 23 and 24. This particular computer is connected on port 24. I > > have a much older end user system which uses the same card (but earlier > > revision), runs Windows XP and is plugged in to port 23. The end user > > system has no problem connecting at 1000baseTX. I have of course tried > > switching ports. > > > > 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. > > While it's _possible_ that this is a driver issue, it's much more likely > (in my experience) that it's a mismatch between the two network devices > (the HP and the NIC). > > 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 No, this is not a stupid thing, it's result of parallel detection. See IEEE 802.3 Std 28.2.3.1 for more details. This is one of reason why users should always use 'auto-negotiation' on 1000baseT media. > the port. > > Also, try autoneg on both ends. Make absolutely sure the Procurve is set > to autoneg. > > 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. > > Try switching out the NIC. Manufacturing QA isn't 100% reliable, sometimes > you get a card that's just flaky. > > Hope this helps. > > -- > Bill Moran > http://www.potentialtech.com > http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/