From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Update on e1000 troubles (over-heating!) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:07:37 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3DABBEB9.7040004@candelatech.com> References: <288F9BF66CD9D5118DF400508B68C44604758B78@orsmsx113.jf.intel.com> <3DABAACE.9040706@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Feldman, Scott" , linux-kernel , "'netdev@oss.sgi.com'" Return-path: To: Dave Hansen Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen wrote: > > I get some strange e1000 failures too. It usually involves the watchdog > kicking them back into order, but sometimes they'll stay offline for a > while. Heat would explain it, though, because it only happens when I'm > actually using the cards for a benchmark. I figured that it was either > my cables, or a shoddy switch. > > The new dual-port e1000 that I have doesn't seem to have this problem, > even though I'm running 4 times more traffic than the singles that I had. That was exactly the behaviour I noticed. I believe it's because when you run two side-by-side, they cook each other (I'm assuming you didn't run 2 2-ports side-by-side) Try strapping a fan on them somehow and I bet all your troubles go away (and maybe your .ibm email will shame Intel into putting heat-sinks and/or small fans on their NICs... ;) (I ran two Netgear 302t NICs (tigon-3) side-by-side for 4 days at max speed, and they didn't drop a single packet, even though their heat-sinks were too hot to touch!) Ben -- Ben Greear President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear