Re: Need help: How to replace NIC card with another brand
Questions below...
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote in message news:<2UpxE-67g-57@gated-at.bofh.it>...
> In message <2UoBz-5oI-45@gated-at.bofh.it>, Gary <gary@garynielson.com>
> writes
> >I need to replace my NIC card and have an Intel NIC card as a
> >replacement. The system is already built and configured for the old
> >card. Do I need to add the module to the kernel? I have never done
> >that after building the system, so how do I go about it? How do I
> >configure the NIC for 10 meg speed and half duplex?
> >System is woody, kernel 2.4.
> >
> Have you compiled the existing kernel, plus only modules you actually
> need, or do you still have an original installation? If the latter, the
> correct module should be there. You need to add it to the list in
> /etc/modules, and I think that should do. It's a while since I changed
> NICs after installation.
I did the basic install with the woody cds, installing kernel 2.4 and
then only installing the module for the NIC card I was using -- not
the one I will be replacing it with. Are you saying all I have to do
is add it to /etc/modules? Where do I get the statements I need for
Intel cards to add to /etc/modules?
Or is it even easier than that with the other writer's suggestion of
discover1? The only thing is I haven't followed the discussion on
discover vs. discover1 and discover2 so I gather all of these do the
same things, 1 and 2 are just upgraded versions?
>
> If it's your own kernel and module set, I think you need to do another
> run with the appropriate module added to the old configuration. Leave
> out the kernel step i.e. just make the modules and install them. Rename
> the old modules directory first, just in case.
>
> If it's a modern NIC it should work out for itself the speed and duplex
> requirements. Basically, if it's on a hub it will go half-duplex, full
> duplex otherwise. Only if it's a fairly old ISA NIC will you need to
> tell it, and there will be a manufacturer's utility to do this. Finding
> it may be another matter.
> --
> Joe
Reply to: