From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 11 17:41: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D1D14E04 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40323>; Wed, 12 May 1999 10:25:53 +1000 Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:40:33 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: What is a "transmit underflow"? To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99May12.102553est.40323@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Jacob wrote: >This almost always happens for tulip chips && and alpha platforms and Matt >Thomas' de driver. ... >> > :de0: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (raising TX threshold to 96|256) >> > :de1: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow (raising TX threshold to 96|256) It also occurs under Digital UNIX: vmunix: tu0: transmit FIFO underflow: threshold raised to: 512 bytes vmunix: tu1: transmit FIFO underflow: threshold raised to: 512 bytes I suspect it's poor design of either the cards or bus. (I've previously queried DEC on why some SCSI cards were placed in particular locations, and received the following answer: "We place the SCSI cards as tested. We know that some cards don't work as well in all slots so we supply the tested version.") Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message