oh man.. :) well heres my results: Gentoo LiveCD:0xb000 Gentoo (Installed): 0xf000 Redhat9 (Installted): 0x1000
lol...so im not sure if the base address makes a big difference :) thanks yet again, farrell farahbod On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 13:03, Dan Foster wrote: > Hot Diggety! Farrell Farahbod was rumored to have written: > > heres the output of ifconfig eth0 on redhat9: > > > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:02:44:14:1B:72 > > inet addr:192.168.1.105 Bcast:192.168.1.255 > > Mask:255.255.255.0 > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:412070 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:852881 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:209 txqueuelen:100 > > RX bytes:192045449 (183.1 Mb) TX bytes:77096680 (73.5 Mb) > > Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1000 > > > > hum...other than rx/tx packets, the only change i see, and this may be > > the problem... "Base address" on redhat its 0x1000, on gentoo its > > 0xf000...is this the problem? > > Possibly. Can you boot from the LiveCD and do the ifconfig eth0 there > as well? > > That should help narrow it down further. > > Having the wrong base address can indeed be enough to hose things; just > not yet ready to pronounce that as the culprit...yet. > > There *is* a way to specify the base address to use for a module if > that's necessary, I believe -- but first, I want to make sure that this > is indeed the culprit before going that far. > > -Dan > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
