Out of curiosity, do only 3c509's exibit this behavior, or is this the core problem with 3c59x's as well? My experiences have not been consistent with these cards, and I had assumed it was due to buggy code in the 3-Com chipset. I've noticed flaky behavior from the "Vortex" [3c59x] card as well.
Just now I have been wrestling with an ISA 3c509 which has a Lucent 40-01304 chip on it. At first the card was detected, and later not detected [on a different OS.] I vote for the fxp's as well, I've had hardly any problems with them. Is there a way to lock down the card by hacking the driver, so it won't try to auto-negotiate the connection? On Wed, 1 May 2002, Sten wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2002, Guido Kollerie wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Unfortunately the switch is unmanaged hence I am not able to > > explicitely set the switch to 100 Mbits full-duplex. Using > > ifconfig to set the nic to 10baseT/UTP and then back to 100baseTX > > full-duplex doesn't help. Only a reboot will bring the NIC back > > to 100 Mbits full duplex mode. > > Please note that due to vagaries in the auto-negotiation > spec 3com and cisco dont work well together. > And 3coms ( on linux atleast ) have the added > bonus of sometimes deciding to change > speed/duplex just for the heck of it. > > The only way to use them reliably is to force > both the card and the switch. We came to the > conclusion that fxp's are a nicer option. > > IMHO just creating a reliable and clearly defined > auto-negotiation protocol will do more for ethernet > speed than gigabit ethernet :). > > > -- > Sten Spans > > "What does one do with ones money, > when there is no more empty rackspace ?" > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
