Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
> 
> Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> writes:
> 
> >jamal wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you can save yourself a lot of pain today by going to a "better
> >> driver"/hardware. Switch to a tulip based board; in particular one which
> >> is based on the 21143 chipset. Compile in hardware traffic control and
> >> save yourself some pain.
> 
> >The tulip driver only started working for my DLINK 4-port NIC
> >after about 2.4.8, and last I checked the ZYNX 4-port still refuses
> >to work, so I wouldn't consider it a paradigm of
> >stability and grace quite yet.  Regardless of that, it is often
> >impossible to trade NICS (think built-in 1U servers), and claiming
> >to only work correctly on certain hardware (and potentially lock up
> >hard on other hardware) is a pretty sorry state of affairs...
> 
> Does it finally do speed and duplex auto negotiation with Cisco
> Catalyst Switches? Something I never ever got to work with various 2.0
> and 2.2 drivers, mode settings, Catalyst settings, IOS versions and
> almost anything else that I ever tried.

Check the latest driver, it works with my IBM switch, and with other
EEPRO and Tulip NICs now, so it may work for you.  The DLINK 4-port
is actually the only one I know of that I have ever gotten to fully
function.  The ZYNX would kind of work at half-duplex for a while,
and an ancient Adaptec I tried locks the whole computer on insmod
of it's driver (IRQ routing issues someone guessed...)  There are
several 2-port EEPRO based NICs out there that work really well
too, but they are expensive...

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>       <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc      http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD:  http://scry.wanfear.com     http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear