From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Sep 27 23:19:09 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DC7C00038 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:19:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leeb@ratnaling.org) Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4FB307 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:19:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leeb@ratnaling.org) Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v205so28318438vke.1 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:19:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ratnaling-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UgfssEJxLqqbYdW+KocA13bQymPpC3oEtaVMzYGU4J0=; b=FQeTYDB3YdSasOQ+eCpZBoY6VPI7Sa1tKeuWi9eUtK9UbOwLNgELLkfDilPMSZotAb VOQ21TGo0bp2uziLT15Lb5K7OM1rRm04qTXpjLLReKukr1T4uY22vUOKz1wKh7AhZhC+ EllHjZYQQj9V8wcxVenaij+YrkUnAyNtWY2PBxzly92M7TYZa4JfI9Ktadmy1SYcMC96 0CGkuKEJGHu83zK7EFKIX82tkvraEf5AeqOzkW2vwL6xNoYz49jS30vNazq4KM+VlnTJ ydjOcrTWJBHLZNVap7qoZFmQVHyj4hCTOz15aT+x0hRBTK6TFRul4AQ1PfheCdTBj98f QTWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UgfssEJxLqqbYdW+KocA13bQymPpC3oEtaVMzYGU4J0=; b=N7pYQ+tsB4V4cwoS8uRS6P2JUizEurMuDacy+e2ASUu0Vi2/t4S9mocz0BcqQrnbm6 YBLue3Pe6VXDOitbJFnUcFA3Qys82TuflJpJ67cGVFv8agrsRaWBmzvfFQe5X3GDzM04 r2T3CDurieoMylWeElD48FK/vo3hCBxuLgQ9H6sbA4oaItyFceM7I414+8TJU/PIVmiH BZvV4lQAZmlO0ipMvauDL9QPttTNjnyCXmatbKh51iDUbk22406jXta13Z5kCOtHzonN JkhOq5X5xclGo6qS7eXCp8gOU7WFylMBiNAls78+stE1AvBr8fdcuY8CJauLi8VPvfPO tgcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmvMEJV2S+o0X7kziftG2NDX2ylEdljkAEKZTRWhqNRBZ4EyL+R0ZDgiCjuFESIiEh764OWBl37d84sfA== X-Received: by 10.31.229.133 with SMTP id c127mr14818676vkh.153.1475018336682; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:18:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.65.38 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:18:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53c8aa26-6bd5-22ed-8987-f901451e4dfd@freebsd.org> <1bcdca11-54de-c827-7f61-b06250dd2e67@freebsd.org> From: Lee Brown Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:18:55 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Will this card (probably) work? To: Jack Vogel Cc: freebsd-net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:19:09 -0000 Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I cannot find anything single-mode from Intel except the X520-LR1 (82599ES chipset) which is only a single port. Everything else is Multi-mode. Even a lot of the SFP stuff only supports MM. At least that's where my research leads me. If you have any insight I'd gladly follow. Believe me, if I could find a supported vendor 4-port or even 2-port SFP or LC that supported SMF I'd be going after it rabidly :) Maybe I should just go with a fiber switch and offload to copper, then at least if there are problems it sites firmly with the vendor and not me! -- lee On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > I think I should let Intel speak to this, they do have quad port adapters > in their offerings, and > as far as I know they are fine. I was speaking of times past when the > bridge device would be > the source of problems, and just saying if this was a non-Intel design it > could be an issue, but > since you are being brave don't let me ruin your adventure :) > > Jack > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Lee Brown wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: >> >>> Its not that they, whoever they is :). "use" the Intel PCID, no, it >>> really IS the Intel device, >>> but it's silicon, not an assembled adapter, its that part which is being >>> done by someone >>> else, and btw, the components to support 4 port type adapters have been >>> notoriously >>> problematic in the past, so having it done by someone besides Intel is >>> at least a potential >>> source of concern. >>> >>> Do you know if 2-port adapters are generally more reliable? I could >> revise my server purchase so I can stuff a couple of cards in there, >> instead of one. >> >> >> >>> I wish you the best, >>> >> Thanks :) >> > >