Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Problem of ethernet driver on cent os

Expand Messages
  • dbk
    hello everyone i having system with 64 bit processor and cent os installed. System working properly but one problem of ethernet driver i installed the e100
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      hello everyone
      i having system with 64 bit processor and cent os installed. System working
      properly but one problem of ethernet driver i installed the e100 driver for
      ethernet but still it is not working...
      plz help me...

      Thank You And Regards,
      Suhas Sonavane.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Hyatt, Dan
      What do you mean by still not working? If you are not sure if it is a software issue ifconfig -a # might help more /etc/sysconfig/network more
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        What do you mean by still not working?



        If you are not sure if it is a software issue


        ifconfig -a # might help

        more /etc/sysconfig/network

        more /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 #assuming your
        device is eth0



        What system/NIC card?

        Is it an 10/100 card or a 10/100/1000 card?



        It is usually not a problem with the hardware and my sinuses are clogged
        so I will pass on the hardware analysis for now.





        ________________________________

        From: redhat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:redhat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of dbk
        Sent: April 05, 2010 9:17 AM
        To: redhat@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [redhat] Problem of ethernet driver on cent os





        hello everyone
        i having system with 64 bit processor and cent os installed. System
        working
        properly but one problem of ethernet driver i installed the e100 driver
        for
        ethernet but still it is not working...
        plz help me...

        Thank You And Regards,
        Suhas Sonavane.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        **********************************************************************
        This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • J
        ... I just wanted to +1 on this... unless it s a brand new chipset, pretty much all the Intel e1000 cards work well under Linux (better than Broadcom
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:36, Hyatt, Dan <DHyatt@...> wrote:
          > What do you mean by still not working?
          > If you are not sure if it is a software issue

          > It is usually not a problem with the hardware and my sinuses are clogged
          > so I will pass on the hardware analysis for now.

          I just wanted to +1 on this... unless it's a brand new chipset, pretty
          much all the Intel e1000 cards work well under Linux (better than
          Broadcom sometimes).

          The only problems I've ever seen with e1000 cards are when new
          chipsets or revisions are released that haven't found support in the
          driver.

          In the 99% of other cases, it's configuration error, and the OP's very
          vague question doesn't help at all WRT diagnosing the issue.
        • Scott
          ... Actually RH was having issues with some common Intel cards, (perhaps the whole Linux kernel was, my memory fails me.) Please post the results of lspci
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:45:04PM -0400, J wrote:
            > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:36, Hyatt, Dan <DHyatt@...> wrote:


            > > What do you mean by still not working?

            > > If you are not sure if it is a software issue
            >
            > > It is usually not a problem with the hardware and my sinuses are clogged
            > > so I will pass on the hardware analysis for now.

            Actually RH was having issues with some common Intel cards, (perhaps the
            whole Linux kernel was, my memory fails me.)

            Please post the results of
            lspci |tail -4

            (I always forget which line has the ethernet card, but it's within the
            last 4 lines.)

            And the result of

            cat /etc/redhat-release

            Lastly the result of

            uname -r

            Thanks.

            --
            Scott Robbins
            PGP keyID EB3467D6
            ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
            gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

            Buffy: Willow, you're alive.
            Willow: Aren't I usually?
          • J
            ... Crap... How the heck could I have forgotten that one... :/ Scott brings up a valid point. There is/was a big circular cluster f*ck between Intel and
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 13:46, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:

              > Actually RH was having issues with some common Intel cards, (perhaps the
              > whole Linux kernel was, my memory fails me.)

              Crap...

              How the heck could I have forgotten that one... :/

              Scott brings up a valid point. There is/was a big circular cluster
              f*ck between Intel and "Linux" (mostly Red Hat) regarding Intel's use
              of MSI interrupts. This would cause multi-port (and probably many
              single port) cards to sometimes do weird things like some ports not
              working, or cards constantly turning themselves off and on...

              One possible way around this is to try booting using the pci=nomsi
              parameter to disable MSI interrupts in the kernel, which, IIRC, forces
              the e1000 driver to use APIC interrupts.

              The big argument for the most of this was that the Intel driver should
              not be using MSI, while intel says "it's not our fault, it's yours"
              and on and on.

              I am completely chagrined that I failed to remember this rather
              important bit of information previously.

              Here's some info:
              https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477774#c5

              IIRC, now, this is more a problem with the newer Intel cards and not
              so much the older first generation e1000 cards... but YMMV.

              Sorry for the memory lapse earlier.
            • Hyatt, Dan
              ________________________________ From: redhat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:redhat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J Sent: April 05, 2010 1:14 PM To:
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                ________________________________

                From: redhat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:redhat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of J
                Sent: April 05, 2010 1:14 PM
                To: redhat@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [redhat] Problem of ethernet driver on cent os





                On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 13:46, Scott <scottro@...
                <mailto:scottro%40nyc.rr.com> > wrote:

                > Actually RH was having issues with some common Intel cards, (perhaps
                the
                > whole Linux kernel was, my memory fails me.)
                I went back and looked, the user (who has not jumped back in) indicated
                an e100 (not e1000) this might be a typo, as I never say "e" applied
                before gigE, might be applying new term to old technology.




                Crap...

                How the heck could I have forgotten that one... :/

                Scott brings up a valid point. There is/was a big circular cluster
                f*ck between Intel and "Linux" (mostly Red Hat) regarding Intel's use
                of MSI interrupts. This would cause multi-port (and probably many
                single port) cards to sometimes do weird things like some ports not
                working, or cards constantly turning themselves off and on...

                One possible way around this is to try booting using the pci=nomsi
                parameter to disable MSI interrupts in the kernel, which, IIRC, forces
                the e1000 driver to use APIC interrupts.

                The big argument for the most of this was that the Intel driver should
                not be using MSI, while intel says "it's not our fault, it's yours"
                and on and on.

                I am completely chagrined that I failed to remember this rather
                important bit of information previously.

                Here's some info:
                https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477774#c5
                <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477774#c5>

                IIRC, now, this is more a problem with the newer Intel cards and not
                so much the older first generation e1000 cards... but YMMV.

                Sorry for the memory lapse earlier.



                **********************************************************************
                This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Hyatt, Dan
                On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 13:46, Scott
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 13:46, Scott <scottro@...
                  <mailto:scottro%40nyc.rr.com> > wrote:

                  > Actually RH was having issues with some common Intel cards, (perhaps
                  the
                  > whole Linux kernel was, my memory fails me.)
                  Actually I opened mouth inserted foot, found references to e100 going
                  back to 2000.


                  Crap...

                  How the heck could I have forgotten that one... :/

                  Scott brings up a valid point. There is/was a big circular cluster
                  f*ck between Intel and "Linux" (mostly Red Hat) regarding Intel's use
                  of MSI interrupts. This would cause multi-port (and probably many
                  single port) cards to sometimes do weird things like some ports not
                  working, or cards constantly turning themselves off and on...

                  One possible way around this is to try booting using the pci=nomsi
                  parameter to disable MSI interrupts in the kernel, which, IIRC, forces
                  the e1000 driver to use APIC interrupts.

                  The big argument for the most of this was that the Intel driver should
                  not be using MSI, while intel says "it's not our fault, it's yours"
                  and on and on.

                  I am completely chagrined that I failed to remember this rather
                  important bit of information previously.

                  Here's some info:
                  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477774#c5
                  <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477774#c5>

                  IIRC, now, this is more a problem with the newer Intel cards and not
                  so much the older first generation e1000 cards... but YMMV.

                  Sorry for the memory lapse earlier.



                  **********************************************************************
                  This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • J
                  ... HAHAHA! Ok... not only do I have failing memory, but I can t read either... I getting old, like Scott ;-) e100 is the older 100Mb driver... I don t know
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 14:30, Hyatt, Dan <DHyatt@...> wrote:

                    > I went back and looked, the user  (who has not jumped back in) indicated
                    > an e100  (not e1000)  this might be a typo, as I never say "e" applied
                    > before gigE, might be applying new term to old technology.

                    HAHAHA! Ok... not only do I have failing memory, but I can't read
                    either... I getting old, like Scott ;-)

                    e100 is the older 100Mb driver... I don't know what it actually stands
                    for, but I had always assumed it meant Ethernet 100 (as e1000 may mean
                    Ethernet 1000) or something like that...

                    Sigh... it's such a monday... my test framework will build but wont
                    run... my scripts work, but I cant test them without the framework,
                    the people I need to talk to about this aren't answering... sigh...

                    I need a beer...
                  • Hyatt, Dan
                    I don t want to talk about the Solaris project I am lead engineer on. Started out very simple....it was very simple from the customer and management s point of
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 5, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't want to talk about the Solaris project I am lead engineer on.

                      Started out very simple....it was very simple from the customer and
                      management's point of view :-)





                      ________________________________

                      From: redhat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:redhat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of J
                      Sent: April 05, 2010 1:34 PM
                      To: redhat@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [redhat] Problem of ethernet driver on cent os





                      On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 14:30, Hyatt, Dan <DHyatt@...
                      <mailto:DHyatt%40forestpharm.com> > wrote:

                      > I went back and looked, the user (who has not jumped back in)
                      indicated
                      > an e100 (not e1000) this might be a typo, as I never say "e" applied
                      > before gigE, might be applying new term to old technology.

                      HAHAHA! Ok... not only do I have failing memory, but I can't read
                      either... I getting old, like Scott ;-)

                      e100 is the older 100Mb driver... I don't know what it actually stands
                      for, but I had always assumed it meant Ethernet 100 (as e1000 may mean
                      Ethernet 1000) or something like that...

                      Sigh... it's such a monday... my test framework will build but wont
                      run... my scripts work, but I cant test them without the framework,
                      the people I need to talk to about this aren't answering... sigh...

                      I need a beer...



                      **********************************************************************
                      This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.