[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 3c90x woes

Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:

: "Christian Pernegger" wrote:

:> I'm running a box with a 3Com 3C905C-TXM, at the moment with
:> potato-testcycle-3 and kernel version 2.2.15.

: Same here, more or less.  I got the 3Com 3C905C-TXM last week in
: a new Dell computer.  

:> The 3c59x module that comes with the standard kernel did not do
:> 100mbit/s full duplex connections for me. 3Coms own 3c90x
:> module does, so I believe it to be better :)

: How does one find out?
: I used to use a Tulip-based card that said so on driver
: initilisation, but all I get now is:

: 3c59x.c:v0.99H 11/17/98 Donald Becker http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/vortex.html
: eth0: 3Com 3c905C Tornado at 0xdc00,  00:01:03:1e:1f:e9, IRQ 11
:   8K byte-wide RAM 5:3 Rx:Tx split, autoselect/Autonegotiate interface.
:   MII transceiver found at address 24, status 782d.
:   Enabling bus-master transmits and whole-frame receives.

: It doesn't say 100Mbits...

The easy way is to look at the lights on your network hub/switch.
There are some utilities at Donald Becker's site that can also
help you figure out what is going on. (You have to compile them
yourself.) Also latest driver on his site is now 0.99Q. Or 3com
now has their own driver for the B/C versions of the card.

The message above tells you that when connection is made, the hub,
and your card will negotiate the details. If all your cabling is
good, etc, you should get 100Mbits full duplex.

*********************** Running Debian Linux ***********************
*   For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son,  *
*   that whoever believes in Him should not perish...    John 3:16  *
* W. Paul Mills              *  Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A.              *
* EMAIL= Paul@Mills-USA.com  *  WWW= http://Mills-USA.com/          *
* Bill, I was there several years ago, why would I want to go back? *
************* pgp public key on keyservers everywhere? *************/

Reply to: