Re: [pfSense] Chelsio T520 card transciever combatibility?
I know some SFP's are interchangeable between manufacturers, I have done so in the past. I would suggest giving some network hardware wholesalers a call and ask them for compatible modules. If you are US based I could give you a number for the company I buy from. For the configuration standpoint, the config is saved to a file when you modify it via the web panel to disk and is persistent between reboots On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:20 AM, WebDawg wrote: > Did you ever find out? > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > > > Does anyone have experience with the Chelsio T520 series of cards > > specifically as it relates to transceiver compatibility? > > > > SFP & SFP+: > > > > We have several applications where we could use these well-supported > > cards, some require use of SFP transceivers (not SFP+) such as > 1000BASE-LX > > transceivers. My understanding is that some cards (such as the Chelsio > > cards) can receive an SFP transceiver (negotiating down from SFP+) but > > requires explicit configuration. Does anyone know if said configuration > > lives in the pfSense (e.g. blown away on reboot). > > > > Aftermarket Transeivers: > > > > Chelsio doesn't make 1000BASE-LX modules, and aftermarket modules appear > > to be marketed toward a particular brand of switch (Juniper, HP, Cisco, > > etc.). Can I safely assume that they're largely interperable? > > > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > -K > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > pfSense mailing list > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics
See, I do not think it is just me. On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Moshe Katz wrote: > I saw a very similar crash when booting a fresh 2.3.4 install yesterday for > the first time. > I think it was before I had even configured it for the first time > (assigning interfaces and addresses, etc). > I rebooted the machine and then it came up fine and is still up with no > trouble. > > > Moshe > > -- > Moshe Katz > -- mo...@ymkatz.net > -- +1(301)867-3732 > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:43 PM, WebDawg wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I just upgraded 2.3.something to 2.3.4 and immediately upon reboot > > experienced kernel panics/crash dumps over and over. The system would > > cycle over and over. > > > > I stopped the process thinking I had a bad raid but upon a fresh install > of > > 2.3.4 I experienced the same thing, except this time the system rebooted > 2 > > times with the panics: > > > > <118>Synchronizing user settings... > > > > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > > cpuid = 4; apic id = 04 > > fault virtual address= 0x0 > > fault code= supervisor read data, page not present > > instruction pointer= 0x20:0x80d716ee > > stack pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea00 > > frame pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea20 > > code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b > > = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 > > processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 > > current process= 12 (swi1: pfsync) > > > > And then fixed itself. I proceeded to reboot it a few times with no more > > panics. > > > > I submitted a crash dump to pfsense but has anyone seen this on x64 intel > > hardware? > > ___ > > pfSense mailing list > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics
No limiters. On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Steve Yates wrote: > Are you running limiters in an HA configuration by chance? There's a > known issue there. (https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=87541.new; > topicseen#new) > > -- > > Steve Yates > ITS, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of WebDawg > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:44 PM > To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List > Subject: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics > > Hello, > > I just upgraded 2.3.something to 2.3.4 and immediately upon reboot > experienced kernel panics/crash dumps over and over. The system would > cycle over and over. > > I stopped the process thinking I had a bad raid but upon a fresh install of > 2.3.4 I experienced the same thing, except this time the system rebooted 2 > times with the panics: > > <118>Synchronizing user settings... > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > cpuid = 4; apic id = 04 > fault virtual address= 0x0 > fault code= supervisor read data, page not present > instruction pointer= 0x20:0x80d716ee > stack pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea00 > frame pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea20 > code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b > = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 > processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 > current process= 12 (swi1: pfsync) > > And then fixed itself. I proceeded to reboot it a few times with no more > panics. > > I submitted a crash dump to pfsense but has anyone seen this on x64 intel > hardware? > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics
I saw a very similar crash when booting a fresh 2.3.4 install yesterday for the first time. I think it was before I had even configured it for the first time (assigning interfaces and addresses, etc). I rebooted the machine and then it came up fine and is still up with no trouble. Moshe -- Moshe Katz -- mo...@ymkatz.net -- +1(301)867-3732 On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:43 PM, WebDawg wrote: > Hello, > > I just upgraded 2.3.something to 2.3.4 and immediately upon reboot > experienced kernel panics/crash dumps over and over. The system would > cycle over and over. > > I stopped the process thinking I had a bad raid but upon a fresh install of > 2.3.4 I experienced the same thing, except this time the system rebooted 2 > times with the panics: > > <118>Synchronizing user settings... > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > cpuid = 4; apic id = 04 > fault virtual address= 0x0 > fault code= supervisor read data, page not present > instruction pointer= 0x20:0x80d716ee > stack pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea00 > frame pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea20 > code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b > = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 > processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 > current process= 12 (swi1: pfsync) > > And then fixed itself. I proceeded to reboot it a few times with no more > panics. > > I submitted a crash dump to pfsense but has anyone seen this on x64 intel > hardware? > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics
Are you running limiters in an HA configuration by chance? There's a known issue there. (https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=87541.new;topicseen#new) -- Steve Yates ITS, Inc. -Original Message- From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of WebDawg Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:44 PM To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List Subject: [pfSense] 2.3.4-RELEASE (amd64) - Kernel Panics Hello, I just upgraded 2.3.something to 2.3.4 and immediately upon reboot experienced kernel panics/crash dumps over and over. The system would cycle over and over. I stopped the process thinking I had a bad raid but upon a fresh install of 2.3.4 I experienced the same thing, except this time the system rebooted 2 times with the panics: <118>Synchronizing user settings... Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode cpuid = 4; apic id = 04 fault virtual address= 0x0 fault code= supervisor read data, page not present instruction pointer= 0x20:0x80d716ee stack pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea00 frame pointer= 0x28:0xfe0467c5ea20 code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b = DPL 0, pres 1, long 1, def32 0, gran 1 processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0 current process= 12 (swi1: pfsync) And then fixed itself. I proceeded to reboot it a few times with no more panics. I submitted a crash dump to pfsense but has anyone seen this on x64 intel hardware? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Chelsio T520 card transciever combatibility?
Did you ever find out? On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > Does anyone have experience with the Chelsio T520 series of cards > specifically as it relates to transceiver compatibility? > > SFP & SFP+: > > We have several applications where we could use these well-supported > cards, some require use of SFP transceivers (not SFP+) such as 1000BASE-LX > transceivers. My understanding is that some cards (such as the Chelsio > cards) can receive an SFP transceiver (negotiating down from SFP+) but > requires explicit configuration. Does anyone know if said configuration > lives in the pfSense (e.g. blown away on reboot). > > Aftermarket Transeivers: > > Chelsio doesn't make 1000BASE-LX modules, and aftermarket modules appear > to be marketed toward a particular brand of switch (Juniper, HP, Cisco, > etc.). Can I safely assume that they're largely interperable? > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > -K > > > > > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
