On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Mars G Miro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Mars G Miro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> If you have a back to back connection to another NIC on Port 0, no
>> switch,
>> does
>> it st
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Mars G Miro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>> >>
>>> >> If you have a back to back connection to another NIC on Port 0, no
>>> >> switch,
>>> >> does
>>> >> it still autoneg to 100?
>>> >>
>>>
>>> Connected back to back w/ a
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
[snip]
>> >>
>> >> If you have a back to back connection to another NIC on Port 0, no
>> >> switch,
>> >> does
>> >> it still autoneg to 100?
>> >>
>>
>> Connected back to back w/ another box w/ a GigE NIC, it now does
>> 1000baseTX:
>>
>> igb0:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Mars G Miro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Mars G Miro
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >> Well, I am at Intel you know, and even we don't seem to have any systems
> >> with
> >> 82576 down in my group here. The way link
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Mars G Miro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> Well, I am at Intel you know, and even we don't seem to have any systems
>> with
>> 82576 down in my group here. The way link works I can be about 99.9% sure
>> in saying its not the driver.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:50:45AM +0800, Mars G Miro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > Well, I am at Intel you know, and even we don't seem to have any systems
> > with
> > 82576 down in my group here. The way link works I can be about 99.9% sure
> > in saying its not
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> So it wasn't identified during install but was in the kernel you built
> afterward, is that
> what you're saying? Even if that's true I don't think its relevant to the
> failure.
>
Ahm no, sysinstall said something like:
igb0:
igb1:
but we
So it wasn't identified during install but was in the kernel you built
afterward, is that
what you're saying? Even if that's true I don't think its relevant to the
failure.
I have made a couple queries internally, there are a lot of variations on
Nehalem
systems, at least one other engineer in my
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Well, I am at Intel you know, and even we don't seem to have any systems
> with
> 82576 down in my group here. The way link works I can be about 99.9% sure
> in saying its not the driver. Its preproduction so there are lots of
> possibilities,
>
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> I have not seen a problem like this ever, what is the link partner
> of each NIC and if you switch the ports what happens?
>
Hi Jack,
They're connected to a GigE switch. It was just one w/ the first
NIC, but having seen that it only connect
I have not seen a problem like this ever, what is the link partner
of each NIC and if you switch the ports what happens?
We have Nehalem's in the validation lab but I have not had an
excuse to install on one so far, I guess now I do :)
Jack
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Mars G Miro wrote:
>
Hi guys,
I just got on my hands today a NEHALEM system:
2 x 5560 Nehalem CPU (2.8GHz, 8MB cache memory, 6.4GT/sec [QPI])
12GB 1333Mhz DDR3 Memory
1 x 500GB SATA HDD
FreeBSD 7.1-RELEASE/amd64 install fine, however I seemed to be
having problems w/ its built-in Intel NICs:
igb0: flags=8843 m
12 matches
Mail list logo
