Linux 2.2.14 and FA310TA cards

[Eric Jorgensen]

	Something is definately wrong though it's hard for me to say what. You
aren't forcing full duplex or something weird like that, are you? 

	My employer purchases FA-310TX's in lots of 50 so I have a heck of a
lot of them around. I'm currently using about a dozen of them under
linux with the stock 2.2.14 (clean kernel.org sources) tulip.o -
0.91g-ppc

	Check cabling? hub? I have no problems with these cards under linux
except in two systems with aparantly bad PCI busses that have problems
with all pci nics.  

	I have very good results with these cards under linux, netperf scores
on unencumbered switches beat everything but intel 82559's, and the
intel only wins by about 0.1%

 - Eric	

Chris Martin wrote:
> 
> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> I have two FA310TX cards, one in a 150 MHz Pentium machine and the
> other in a 600 MHz dual Pentium III machine linked by an FE104 hub (a
> Netgear FB104 starter kit).
> 
> Both machines run Linux 2.2.14.
> 
> No problems were reported when I tested the connection under DOS using
> the DIAG.EXE on the diagnostic disk.
> 
> I also ran the tests with each of the machines being master (with the
> other slave) in turn with no problems reported.
> 
> However, pinging the fast machine from the slow machine when both were
> running Linux shows, typically,
> 
>   53 packets transmitted, 21 packets received, 60% packet loss
>   round-trip min/avg/max = 0.3/0.3/0.3 ms
> 
> While pinging the slow machine from the fast machine shows
> 
>   51 packets transmitted, 23 packets received, +10 corrupted, 54% packet loss
>   round-trip min/avg/max = 0.2/0.2/0.2 ms
> 
> The corrupted packets show an output like
> 
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=40 ttl=255 time=0.2 ms (BAD CHECKSUM!)
> wrong data byte #29 should be 0x1d but was 0x1c
>         84 6e 4 39 cc 39 f 0 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1c 1c 1c
>         1d 1e 1f 20 21 22 20 25 26 27 24 29 2a 2b 28 2d
> 
> I originally used the driver (tulip.c) from the kernel tarball, this
> was 0.91g-ppc, I then replaced it in the kernel source with the driver
> supplied on the Netgear driver/diagnostic disk, 0.89K, and then
> downloaded the development driver, 0.91g.
> 
> Finally I downloaded and installed 0.92 having set up the kernel to
> load tulip.o as a module and overwriting it with the modules from
> netdriver-2.0-2.src.rpm.
> 
> The driver at present in use announces itself (on the fast machine) as
> 
>  tulip.c:v0.92 4/17/2000  Written by Donald Becker <becker@scyld.com>
>    http://www.scyld.com/network/tulip.html
>  eth0: Lite-On 82c168 PNIC rev 32 at 0xd0851f00, 00:A0:CC:5D:7E:EE, IRQ 11.
>  eth0:  MII transceiver #1 config 3000 status 7829 advertising 01e1.
> 
> and on the slow machine as
> 
>  tulip.c:v0.92 4/17/2000  Written by Donald Becker <becker@scyld.com>
>    http://www.scyld.com/network/tulip.html
>  eth0: Lite-On 82c168 PNIC rev 32 at 0xc4820000, 00:A0:CC:5D:59:FB, IRQ 10.
>  eth0:  MII transceiver #1 config 3000 status 7829 advertising 01e1.
> 
> Netgear support say they only know Windows and ask if the cards are in
> a bus mastering slot.
> 
> Is it worth continuing with these cards or should I send them back and
> get Vortex cards instead?
> 
> Chris Martin
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send a message body containing "unsubscribe"
> to linux-tulip-request@beowulf.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send a message body containing "unsubscribe"
to linux-tulip-request@beowulf.org