Re: OpenBSD 5.0 upgrade: em interface status no carrier

2011-11-20 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Sam Vaughan samvaug...@surgeonline.com
wrote:
 On 18/11/2011, at 12:59 PM, Sam Vaughan wrote:

 Hi,

 After upgrading from OpenBSD 4.9 to OpenBSD 5.0, the Intel 82579LM and
 Intel PRO/1000 MT (82574L) devices on one of my servers no longer come
up.

 facepalm

 If I'd bothered to compare those two dmesg outputs more closely I'd have
 noticed that OpenBSD 5.0 is simply enumerating the two interfaces in the
 opposite order.  What was em0 in 4.9 is now em1 in 5.0 and vice versa.
 Simply
 swapping the cable to the other port and _not_ moving the settings in
ifconfig
 to em1 fixes the problem.  Sorry for the noise.

 By the way, is there any reason why I should prefer the 82579LM to the
82574L
 or vice versa?

 Thanks,

 Sam



there's no reason you should consider either of them for any serious
task as both of them are desktop low performance versions.

82576EB is known to be a very good one for routing workloads.

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/brochure/ethernet-controllers-phys-broch
ure.pdf



Re: OpenBSD 5.0 upgrade: em interface status no carrier

2011-11-17 Thread Sam Vaughan
On 18/11/2011, at 12:59 PM, Sam Vaughan wrote:

 Hi,

 After upgrading from OpenBSD 4.9 to OpenBSD 5.0, the Intel 82579LM and
Intel PRO/1000 MT (82574L) devices on one of my servers no longer come up.

facepalm

If I'd bothered to compare those two dmesg outputs more closely I'd have
noticed that OpenBSD 5.0 is simply enumerating the two interfaces in the
opposite order.  What was em0 in 4.9 is now em1 in 5.0 and vice versa.  Simply
swapping the cable to the other port and _not_ moving the settings in ifconfig
to em1 fixes the problem.  Sorry for the noise.

By the way, is there any reason why I should prefer the 82579LM to the 82574L
or vice versa?

Thanks,

Sam