Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:03:45 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: "Dan Ts'o" <dan@dna.rockefeller.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel Etherexpress PRO/100+ PCI Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980508095750.24458G-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199805072131.RAA16674@dna.rockefeller.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dan Ts'o wrote: > > As I understand it, the PRO/100+ is just a PRO/100B, but fabricated > > differently -- they figured out how to do it with one less chip. But > > the interface is the same. > > An Intel support engineer told me that, although very similar, the > Pro/100+ and Pro/100B are not identical at the software/driver level and > that minor changes would probably be necessary to fully support the Pro/100+. > He said that (at the time), since the Pro/100B was still on the market that > if I was concerned, I should get the Pro/100B instead to avoid problems. We've got a couple of Pro/100+'s here and they don't work quite as expected with the fxp driver. Occasionaly the cards stop responding to anything from the network (i.e. they become 100% useless!), the machine is fine, but generally needs a reboot before the card will function properly again. [Coupled with say the ps/2 (?) type keyboards that don't always work if you unplug and then replug them from the machine, it make the 100+ a pretty bad choice for a server that might have no monitor keyboard 99% of the time.] Steve Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd. Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342 WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980508095750.24458G-100000>