Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 03:08, David Greaves wrote:
Jens Laas wrote:
We have tried different versions of e1000 without luck.
Me too, 3 cards.
(did I mention I have 2 machines with very similar specs (AMD/VIAKT600)
and the other one works - actually, to be accurate, hasn't yet failed
but hasn't yet run at full speed - and it has a higher CPU speed)
What do you mean by, ". . . hasn't yet run at full speed - and it has a
higher CPU speed . . ." ? Does this mean that you can't get the card to
have a reasonable throughput (~900Mbps)?
It sounded reasonable when I wrote it :)
I have 2 machines I can easily test with (wired back to back)
Machine 1 has an AMD3000+ CPU, machine 2 has an AMD3200+ cpu (maybe not
relevant - maybe important if it's timing related?)
Machine one stalls within a few kb.
Machine two has shown no signs of failure yet.
However the other machine has not been stressed at all so it has 'not
yet run at full speed' - not surprising since it has no friends with
working gigabit cards :)
David
PS
I tried some experiments this weekend with a third machine but I got
nasty kernel oopses on the second (supposedly good) whenever I did
ifconfig eth1 mtu 9000 and I've not had time to get any proper results
or a minimal failure yet.
simply issuing
ifconfig eth1 mtu 9000
on the second machine gave me this:
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: printk: 1 messages suppressed.
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:3,
mode:0x20
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__alloc_pages+728/848]
__alloc_pages+0x2d8/0x350
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__get_free_pages+37/64]
__get_free_pages+0x25/0x40
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [kmem_getpages+32/176] kmem_getpages+0x20/0xb0
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [cache_grow+166/512] cache_grow+0xa6/0x200
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [cache_alloc_refill+342/544]
cache_alloc_refill+0x156/0x220
Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__kmalloc+116/128] __kmalloc+0x74/0x80
...
I'll report more fully when I can produce something consistent.
|