+1
On 2010-12-04 17:16:53, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>On 04.12.2010 15:08, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> This isn't some simple 'go change this line or parameter',
>> there were some problematic issues that my Linux coworkers
>> faced, I have to go look into it before I even decide...
>>
>> so...patience fri
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking to some of
> our
> Linux crew, they recently changed things so it would shut down the phy, but
> that
> doesn't always make everyone happy either.
>
> Just saying that my F
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, Jack Vogel wrote:
LOL, ya, I have one of those switches that takes that long, a
Dell 5224, takes some getting used to when you're used to
back to back speeds :)
On the Dell you can speed things up with the "portfast" option. "Rapid
STP" will also help. These should be a
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Jack Vogel wrote:
There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking to some of
our
Linux crew, they recently changed things so it would shut down the phy, but
that
doesn't always make everyone happy either.
It's kind of the classic admin shutdown but I can gue
On 04.12.2010 14:28, Jack Vogel wrote:
> LOL, ya, I have one of those switches that takes that long, a
> Dell 5224, takes some getting used to when you're used to
> back to back speeds :)
>
> There hasn't been any crying for this feature so I'm disinclined,
> however if more than 1 or two want it
On 04.12.2010 04:00, Jack Vogel wrote:
> There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking to some
> of our
> Linux crew, they recently changed things so it would shut down the phy,
> but that
> doesn't always make everyone happy either.
Of course, that should be made optional with d
On 04.12.2010 15:08, Jack Vogel wrote:
> This isn't some simple 'go change this line or parameter',
> there were some problematic issues that my Linux coworkers
> faced, I have to go look into it before I even decide...
>
> so...patience friend.
I should said it more precise: I will patch the dri
This isn't some simple 'go change this line or parameter',
there were some problematic issues that my Linux coworkers
faced, I have to go look into it before I even decide...
so...patience friend.
Jack
2010/12/4 Eugene Grosbein
> On 04.12.2010 04:00, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > There are pros and c
LOL, ya, I have one of those switches that takes that long, a
Dell 5224, takes some getting used to when you're used to
back to back speeds :)
There hasn't been any crying for this feature so I'm disinclined,
however if more than 1 or two want it I would reconsider.
Jack
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at
Jack Vogel wrote:
> There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking
> to some of our Linux crew, they recently changed things so it
> would shut down the phy, but that doesn't always make everyone
> happy either.
In particular, depending on the type of switch and how it is
config
There are pros and cons either way you do things. I was talking to some of
our
Linux crew, they recently changed things so it would shut down the phy, but
that
doesn't always make everyone happy either.
Just saying that my FreeBSD drivers have not done so forever :)
Jack
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at
On 04.12.2010 01:37, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> Now I see, thanks.
>>
>> Is it technically possible to bring link down
>> for distinct port of dual-port em/igb-supported NICs using software?
>>
>> If yes, I'd like to patch my source tree.
>> For EtherChannel this kind of management should be possible.
On 12/3/2010 1:44 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 03.12.2010 23:49, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> It has never been the case that 'down'ing an interface brings link down,
>> not on em
>> or igb. So this isn't problem with the release.
>>
>> Jack
>
> Now I see, thanks.
>
> Is it technically possible to bri
On 03.12.2010 23:49, Jack Vogel wrote:
> It has never been the case that 'down'ing an interface brings link down,
> not on em
> or igb. So this isn't problem with the release.
>
> Jack
Now I see, thanks.
Is it technically possible to bring link down
for distinct port of dual-port em/igb-supporte
It has never been the case that 'down'ing an interface brings link down, not
on em
or igb. So this isn't problem with the release.
Jack
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 02.12.2010 12:18, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm building new router using 8.2-PREREL
On 02.12.2010 12:18, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm building new router using 8.2-PRERELEASE containing new igb(4) driver.
> I use SuperMicro SuperServer 5016T-MTFB based on X8STi-F motherboard
> with add-on Intel Gigabit ET Dual Port Server Adapter in PCIe slot.
>
> pciconf -lv shows:
>
>
Hi!
I'm building new router using 8.2-PRERELEASE containing new igb(4) driver.
I use SuperMicro SuperServer 5016T-MTFB based on X8STi-F motherboard
with add-on Intel Gigabit ET Dual Port Server Adapter in PCIe slot.
pciconf -lv shows:
i...@pci0:3:0:0:class=0x02 card=0xa03c8086 chip=0
17 matches
Mail list logo
