From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264097AbUESHNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 03:13:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264096AbUESHNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 03:13:00 -0400 Received: from uucp.cistron.nl ([62.216.30.38]:63946 "EHLO ncc1701.cistron.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264101AbUESHLe (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 03:11:34 -0400 From: dth@ncc1701.cistron.net (Danny ter Haar) Subject: Re: [2.6.6] eepro100 vs e100? Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:11:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Cistron Message-ID: References: <200405190858.44632.lkml@kcore.org> X-Trace: ncc1701.cistron.net 1084950691 16383 62.216.30.38 (19 May 2004 07:11:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: dth@ncc1701.cistron.net (Danny ter Haar) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan De Luyck wrote: >I'm wondering what driver is the "best" one to use? Judging by the comments in >the files, the e100 driver seems to be the best maintained, though I'm >probably wrong ;p We have a usenet server we use with 2.6.6 kernel and the eepro100 gives IRQ problems: May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: eepro100.c:v1.09j-t 9/29/99 Donald Becker http://www.scyld.com/network/eepro100.html May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: eepro100.c: $Revision: 1.36 $ 2000/11/17 Modified by Andrey V. Savochkin and others May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: eth0: OEM i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet, 00:90:27:BE:B6:85, IRQ 18. May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: Board assembly 734938-001, Physical connectors present: RJ45 May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: Primary interface chip i82555 PHY #1. May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: General self-test: passed. May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: Serial sub-system self-test: passed. May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: Internal registers self-test: passed. May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: ROM checksum self-test: passed (0x04f4518b). May 16 01:35:58 enterprise kernel: eth0: freeing mc frame. May 16 01:47:12 enterprise kernel: eth0: TX underrun, threshold adjusted. May 16 01:47:27 enterprise last message repeated 26 times Where as the e100 is rocksolid (knock wood) under sometimes heavy load: Linux 2.6.6-bk2 (root@enterprise) (gcc 3.3.3 ) #1 Sun May 16 10:50:59 CEST 2004 1CPU [enterprise.cistron.nl] Memory: Total Used Free Shared Buffers Mem: 1037228 1031548 5680 0 624540 Swap: 1027144 9424 1017720 Bootup: Sun May 16 11:34:58 2004 Load average: 1.88 1.77 1.69 5/87 9230 user : 6:03:53.43 8.7% page in : 0 nice : 0:51:24.39 1.2% page out: 0 system: 9:22:34.92 13.5% swap in : 0 idle : 12:48:17.34 18.4% swap out: 0 uptime: 2d 21:35:04.35 context :483979334 irq 0: 250377255 timer irq 12: 3 irq 1: 3 irq 14: 11055492 ide0 irq 3: 2 irq 15: 11058878 ide1 irq 4: 193 serial irq 16: 27773698 sym53c8xx irq 8: 3 rtc irq 18: 996592375 eth0 irq 9: 0 acpi irq 19: 22025755 ide2, ide3 So _i_ would advise the e100 driver. Danny (personal view etc) -- /"\ | Dying is to be avoided because \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN | it can ruin your whole career X against HTML MAIL | / \ and POSTINGS | - Bob Hope