From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 15 21:01:39 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 4B0D2106564A for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 21:01:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matheusber@gmail.com) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC0F8FC13 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 21:01:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matheusber@gmail.com) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so1508202qwe.7 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:received:received :message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :importance; bh=AR+s7hI0q1FlVRjtquJqOei+6O0TetrzpPUERFzGmnE=; b=dNSp3BFdURHVVhXU7i4lisWqZ6Qu/16m15acaSuAR/KuQGERqC6bJSs0UzlzF4CrKn JcrdPxS+q75y+xdsfac1zE1q/wOV6qtpbZH2yKq96wGaDxcVQB2kaZbbFGjkh7U7SQUT bmEeATfM6bHcOD8Mb8ed1ofGOFRCrxTtnQe6g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-priority:importance; b=utCsrDP8L8ZGy648svW2Qg5UQ4oNk1MdVkv2wXa38mrt7HkVxsfBfLYpGTJtuH671n iJ/x9193nuyab0I2dTSRsc7dTV207+zKb78y4wh4wvZvPvgwZzLLcKPlxGJTQ+x+WSMi nUUl+mEqBXaws2y6ut6l+gdESg6V3udptVg2o= Received: by 10.224.89.8 with SMTP id c8mr4398964qam.371.1242421298371; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cygnus.homeunix.com (201008164081.user.veloxzone.com.br [201.8.164.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm314060qwf.55.2009.05.15.14.01.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 15 May 2009 14:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Nenhum_de_Nos Received: by cygnus.homeunix.com (Postfix, from userid 80) id 65959B8143; Fri, 15 May 2009 18:01:33 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 10.1.1.80 (SquirrelMail authenticated user matheus) by 10.1.1.10 with HTTP; Fri, 15 May 2009 18:01:33 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: <9c6b919d50e3d92060fde088f06ddb2b.squirrel@10.1.1.10> In-Reply-To: References: <4A0C34DC.9040508@mdchs.org> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:01:33 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal 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: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:01:39 -0000 On Thu, May 14, 2009 12:53, Tim Judd wrote: > 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. I know this is a bit off, but as I never had CAT6 stuff to deal with here it goes. is there any problems in using CAT6 cabling and not 1000baseTX capable switch ? I plan to install cat6 cables and just use 1000baseTX in future. this will be my new home network and all I have now is 100baseTX and two 1000baseT cards. thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style