From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Mar 2 02:44:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA03691 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 02:44:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA03686 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 02:44:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id CAA01163; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 02:46:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703021046.CAA01163@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: jmcla@ocala.cs.miami.edu cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ethernet and CAP In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 02 Mar 1997 04:48:28 EST." <33194CEC.7F47@ocala.cs.miami.edu> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 02:46:11 -0800 Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >I've tried using the fxp0 (Intel 100 Base-T), but it craps out if >network traffic gets too high. I couldn't keep it on the network for >more than 30 minutes at a time. I appreciate any help anyone can offer. I think what is really happening is that you're getting some garbage from your cabling or possibly from your hub/switch. There is a bug in the "rev 1" chips that causes the receiver to go dead if the IFS is too short (or the preamble contains garbage). I'm using the Pro/100B in wcarchive, and we do about 2.5MBytes/sec sustained (with higher peaks) for most of the day, and I've never had a glitch. I've also done extensive stress testing here (I have Pro/100B's in all of the machines here), and except when I mess around with the cables, I've never seen a failure. The bug is supposed to be fixed in the next rev of the chip; I have a couple of the next-rev cards here, but I haven't had a chance to plug them in yet. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project