>
>>>> To be honest, I do not understand why the e1000e driver failed to recognize
>>>> the NIC when I tried. At least, I noticed the correct device ID is defined
>>>> in drivers/net/e1000e/hw.h:
>>>>
>>>> #define E1000_DEV_ID_82573L
erstand why the e1000e driver failed to recognize
> >> the NIC when I tried. At least, I noticed the correct device ID is defined
> >> in drivers/net/e1000e/hw.h:
> >>
> >> #define E1000_DEV_ID_82573L0x109A
> >>
> >> Any help
ined
>> in drivers/net/e1000e/hw.h:
>>
>> #define E1000_DEV_ID_82573L0x109A
>>
>> Any help is appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -- Forwarded Message --
>>
>> Subject: Re: e100
0x109A
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
> ------ Forwarded Message --
>
> Subject: Re: e1000 1sec latency problem
> Date: Thursday 07 February 2008
> From: Martin Rogge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
>
On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
> >>>
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>>>
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
>>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
>>> 64 bytes from
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
Hi, I have the same problem with my Thinkpad T60.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ping arnold
PING arnold (192.168.158.6) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=49.7 ms
64 bytes from arnold
Hi!
> > I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
> >
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_se
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Kok, Auke wrote:
>>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any
>> chance ?
>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it m
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>>> Kok, Auke wrote:
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance
> ?
> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
> differe
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Kok, Auke wrote:
>>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
difference.
We've had lots of issues with
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
>>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
>>> difference.
>>> We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior. No
Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ?
>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any
>> difference.
>> We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior. Not this bad (ie 1
>> second) t
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>>
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.
Hi!
I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=71 ttl=56 time=308.9 m
18 matches
Mail list logo
