Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Out of pure interest, I'd love to see whether xl on an earlier
> kernel (say 4.x, if the hardware can even run it) or even 6.x
> would work.
I'll put that on the list for the next time I need to reboot it.
I'm sure I have a 6.1 CD somewhere, and probably a 4.x CD also.
(The
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 10/21/11 5:00 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > I have an 8.1-RELEASE system with an xl on the mainboard:
> >
> > xl0: <3Com 3c905C-TX Fast Etherlink XL> port 0xdc80-0xdcff mem
> 0xf8fffc00-0xf8fffc7f irq 16 at device 4.0 on pci2
>
On 23-10-2011 17:09, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>> but there was no forwarding table and all packets were forwarded
>> to all ports.
>
> I always figured that's normal for a "hub" as opposed to a "switch".
>
>> I also remember that SOME hubs of that era had series problems if
>> the cable was
Out of pure interest, I'd love to see whether xl on an earlier kernel
(say 4.x, if the hardware can even run it) or even 6.x would work.
Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsu
> > ... SOME hubs of that era had series problems if the cable was
> > too short.
> >
> > You mentioned using a short cable. Have you tried a longer one?
> > I seem to recall that 3 meters was the minimum, but it was so
> > long ago that my memory is a bit fuzzy.
>
> The first cable I used was abou
> > You can either replace the NIC with something else,
> > or replace the hub. IMHO, I would replace both.
>
> I can replace the hub easily enough -- I have a 100-only
> Netgear that _is_ a true hub (has been used successfully
> for sniffing) ...
That fixed it. For the archives, this particular
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
> On the other hand, for anything Gb capable nowadays connected to a
> switch autoneg pretty much just works -- em(4), bce(4) are excellent,
> and even re(4) gets this stuff right.
There are still cases of incompatibility. I've got a cheap D-
On 23/10/2011 13:14, Peter Maxwell wrote:
> "Auto-negotiation" is a nightmare, and *will* cause you problems. The best
> you can do is try to try to set every device using the switch to 100Mbps
> full, if that doesn't work buy a proper switch.
Autoneg is only a nightmare if you use turn-of-the-mi
On 23 October 2011 20:14, Peter Maxwell wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> "Auto-negotiation" is a nightmare, and *will* cause you problems. The best
> you can do is try to try to set every device using the switch to 100Mbps
> full, if that doesn't work buy a proper switch.
.. you mean 100/half, as full o
On 21 October 2011 16:00, wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> Both connections were using the same (short) Cat5 cable, I tried two
> different ports on the 10/100 hub, and other systems work OK on that
> 10/100 hub.
>
> How do I get this interface to operate properly at 100MB?
>
>
...snip...
"Auto-negotia
Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Wow. it's 1985 again. O remember those 10/100 hubs. They were a
> royal pain!
>
> If I remember right, they kept costs down by building in half of
> a switch. Traffic from a 10 port to a 100 port was buffered,
Speed conversion had to have been buffered in both directions.
On Oct 22, 2011 2:21 AM, wrote:
>
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> > 1) I think you misunderstand what product it is you own. You have
> > a hub, not a switch. This is confirmed by the fact that auto-neg
> > chooses to negotiate half-duplex. Instead, you went later and
> > messed about trying to f
Can you boot releng_4 or releng_6 on this hardware? ie, does xl do the
same thing on the same hardware with older OS code?
Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send a
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> 1) I think you misunderstand what product it is you own. You have
> a hub, not a switch. This is confirmed by the fact that auto-neg
> chooses to negotiate half-duplex. Instead, you went later and
> messed about trying to force full-duplex, which isn't going to
> work
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 05:10:04AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> > On 10/21/11 5:00 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > > I have an 8.1-RELEASE system with an xl on the mainboard:
> > > xl0: <3Com 3c905C-TX Fast Etherlink XL> port 0xdc80-0xdcff mem
> > > 0xf8ff
Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 10/21/11 5:00 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > I have an 8.1-RELEASE system with an xl on the mainboard:
> > xl0: <3Com 3c905C-TX Fast Etherlink XL> port 0xdc80-0xdcff mem
> > 0xf8fffc00-0xf8fffc7f irq 16 at device 4.0 on pci2
> > miibus0: on xl0
> > xlphy0:
On 10/21/11 5:00 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> I have an 8.1-RELEASE system with an xl on the mainboard:
>
> xl0: <3Com 3c905C-TX Fast Etherlink XL> port 0xdc80-0xdcff mem
> 0xf8fffc00-0xf8fffc7f irq 16 at device 4.0 on pci2
> miibus0: on xl0
> xlphy0: <3c905C 10/100 internal PHY> PHY
I have an 8.1-RELEASE system with an xl on the mainboard:
xl0: <3Com 3c905C-TX Fast Etherlink XL> port 0xdc80-0xdcff mem
0xf8fffc00-0xf8fffc7f irq 16 at device 4.0 on pci2
miibus0: on xl0
xlphy0: <3c905C 10/100 internal PHY> PHY 24 on miibus0
xlphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100
18 matches
Mail list logo
