Re: tulip stability (was eepro100 troubles)

From: Brian (hiryuu@ztnet.com)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 14:56:52 EST


Hmm... you might have me on that one. On the x86 systems we have:

00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: Lite-On Communications Inc LNE100TX (rev 21)
        Subsystem: Netgear FA310TX
        Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
        I/O ports at e800
        Memory at e3001000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
        Expansion ROM at e2000000 [disabled]

tulip-diag.c:v2.00 4/19/2000 Donald Becker (becker@scyld.com)
 http://www.scyld.com/diag/index.html
Index #1: Found a Lite-On 82c168 PNIC adapter at 0xe800.
 Port selection is MII, full-duplex.
 Transmit started, Receive started, full-duplex.
  The Rx process state is 'Waiting for packets'.
  The Tx process state is 'Idle'.
  The transmit unit is set to store-and-forward.

Not sure about the Netwinders (StrongARM anyway), but almost certainly a clone.

We've used a number of different drivers. Offhand, the versions included in
2.2.5-2.2.15 (.89H - .91g, I think), and some off Becker's site (up to .91N, I
think).

        -- Brian

On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The web servers (~10Mb/s) last about 3 days on tulip. With all the Linux
> > zealots talking about taking on Sun and the "enterprise," I'd drop dead laughing
> > if they weren't my servers.
>
> Clones or the real thing. We run a large ftp archive site without problems
> on a pair 21142s. It was one of the first gnome 1.2 sites during the
> slashdot 'lets announce it early' fiasco and it took 200+ ftp sessions for
> several days in a row. Not a problem.
>
> Which chips are in your tulip, what driver ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:40 EST