From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264372AbUBOIRX (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:17:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264374AbUBOIRW (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:17:22 -0500 Received: from may.nosdns.com ([207.44.240.96]:63442 "EHLO may.nosdns.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264372AbUBOIRP (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:17:15 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:16:47 -0700 From: Elikster X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.02.3 CE) Personal Reply-To: Elikster Organization: WebSpires Technologies X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1693736809.20040215011647@webspires.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re[2]: e1000 problems in 2.6.x In-Reply-To: <402EE603.8020106@tmr.com> References: <20040215023226.GE1040@saturn5.com> <402EE603.8020106@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - may.nosdns.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - webspires.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Bill, You are not alone. It happened to all boxes with Intel E1000 network cards and integrated. It happened on 2.6.2 kernel version and I downgraded back to 2.4.24 version and it was running fine. The problems I experienced is network lag and lot of network disconnects and such. It is the kernel 2.6.2 that this problem showed up. I haven't tried the latest versions yet that Linus just released to see if they fixed that issue yet. Saturday, February 14, 2004, 8:22:43 PM, you wrote: BD> Steve Simitzis wrote: >> i should have mentioned in my email that i tried every combination of >> settings: auto-neg on the box and forced on the switch, both forced >> (to the same settings, of course), forced on the box with auto-neg on >> the switch, and auto-neg on both sides. in all cases, the result was >> the same: RX packet errors and the same watchdog messages. what i thought >> was particularly strange was that the switch refused to auto-negotiate >> full duplex. -- Best regards, Elikster mailto:elik@webspires.com