From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 14 16:16:31 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6D3106564A for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 16:16:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tajudd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f159.google.com (mail-ew0-f159.google.com [209.85.219.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CF98FC24 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 16:16:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tajudd@gmail.com) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so1668134ewy.43 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 09:16:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=aY0sOA59ZvlXigpRzwV5V00q56i8xC2ECEr6URe3qPY=; b=ucrMZrvLmpSrQsSneNOSB0zQtk+hk9EiFB/5tMdm0BQHABc2LJ2lAivnE0gf3cEfY8 M0UZaxiw5S1oGPocEdPrLnkSQn9P8vZUgGNQDdtXm9rarvqkKrYMzudeiLhg/L2rjRoc pM7lzbrmPaEJp5RUsHmWiVK75XETAZOKv188I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=w+a7Z9mz/Xnjbj4mGVp+w4/Gi0uye9JB1RGFvi0ywM0l70+2yXHYb7oEvsmr2c4+bN Z8akRKzzZCsdtsp2e4FI8qNjYqJwNxFRAuj/SlLkCvAD6zLVYbxnRqXeyAV+i+/4VneN qMYt+xxdDP5L0QvKTyjnFOCbsft6IR0Bul9jM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.75.70 with SMTP id x6mr3688987vcj.87.1242316415205; Thu, 14 May 2009 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> References: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> From: Tim Judd Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:53:15 -0600 Message-ID: To: James Tanis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: issues with Intel Pro/1000 and 1000baseTX X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:16:31 -0000 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM, James Tanis wrote: > 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. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > -- > James Tanis > Technical Coordinator > Computer Science Department > Monsignor Donovan Catholic High School > I'm going to point the finger at the possibility of the Ethernet cable itself. Gigabit link requires CAT5e or better (CAT6). A CAT5 alone is NOT enough to give gigabit speeds. Check the markings on the cable, replace if it's not a 5e or 6 and try again. This includes the discussion of proper terminating and twist requirements. --Tim