Any mistake?
The rl driver supports some really terrible hardware, so I'm far from
convinced that your custom kernel is causing the problems. Perhaps you
could check by switching back to a GENERIC kernel for a while.
It works well with GENERIC when I'm simply serfing the net or
fetching ports
From Lowell Gilbert :
> > rl0: link state changed to UP
> > rl0: watchdog timeout
> > rl0: watchdog timeout
> >
> > Any mistake?
>
> The rl driver supports some really terrible hardware, so I'm far from
> convinced that your custom kernel is causing
nged to UP
> rl0: watchdog timeout
> rl0: watchdog timeout
>
> Any mistake?
The rl driver supports some really terrible hardware, so I'm far from
convinced that your custom kernel is causing the problems. Perhaps you
could check by switching back to a GENERIC kernel for a whil
of errors:
>
> rl0: link state changed to UP
> rl0: watchdog timeout
> rl0: watchdog timeout
>
> Any mistake?
Have you looked at the manual page for this driver? (try running 'man
rl' in a (x-)terminal). I quote:
rl%d: watchdog timeout The device has stopp
Hello, all!
I have Asus X51RL laptop with FreeBSD 7.1-RC1 installed.
There were no troubles with GENERIC kernel, but when I've compiled custom
kernel, rl ethernet driver tells to the console a lot of errors:
rl0: link state changed to UP
rl0: watchdog timeout
rl0: watchdog timeout
Any mi
time I found:
kernel: rl0: watchdog timeout
I don't know what it's trying to tell me, and I don't know if it's a cause or
an effect.
This is 6.0-STABLE as of late Sunday night. i386. rl0 is my WAN-side
interface. vr0 is my internal interface. This machine runs DNS, e
Since I upgraded to version 6, my server has frozen under heavy network
traffic three times. It ran happily for months on various versions of
5. Same hardware, same configuration.
There was never anything in /var/log/messages until this last time. This
time I found:
kernel: rl0: watchdog
On Friday 17 December 2004 09:35, Nico Meijer wrote:
> I don't (and won't, unless forced) use Intel NICs, so I cannot speak
> of them. I've had the very unpleasant experience of having had to
> deal with a fierce network boost on a RealTek 8139 (don't ask...) in
> a linux box. It meant the nic (and
Hi Dmitry,
Are we straying OT yet? I guess so, you've been warned.
> We have tons of them working on servers, routers and desktops because
> they are cheap (some beers are more expensive).
You are comparing cheap nics with beer? I'll take that beer, thanks! ;-)
I like the analogy, btw. Cheap b
On Thursday 16 December 2004 04:36, Mike Jeays wrote:
> > I have no first hand experience with this particular problem, but
> > it's almost common knowledge RealTek nics are great because they
> > are cheap, not because they are of good quality. The phrase "piece
> > of crap" has been uttered more
> I have no first hand experience with this particular problem, but it's
> almost common knowledge RealTek nics are great because they are cheap,
> not because they are of good quality. The phrase "piece of crap" has
> been uttered more than once in relation to these nics.
>
I have three of them
> ping -f xxx. 15 seconds later, the kernel says that
> rl0: watchdog timeout.
> I can't send files more then 100MB via network. This problem
> is because of my PC configuration - Motherboard GB K8N,
> chipset nforce 3. Unfortunately, even FreeBSD 5.3 can't handle
&
Hi Andrew,
Warning: no definitive answer ahead.
> After some time my realtek card becomes unresponsible. It happens
> because of buffer overflow. I tried ping -f xxx. 15 seconds later, the
> kernel says that rl0: watchdog timeout. I can't send files more then
> 100MB via network
Good day!
I know, this question is famous, but i can't handle it myself. The problem is:
After some time my realtek card becomes unresponsible. It happens because of
buffer overflow. I tried ping -f xxx. 15 seconds later, the kernel says that
rl0: watchdog timeout. I can't send files
14 matches
Mail list logo
