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

Re: The dreaded RTL8111/8168B, ethernet driver failure



Thanks for the feedback, Glenn.

I adapted your block for a static IP for my network:
# The primary network interface
iface eth0 inet static
        address 192.168.1.199
        netmask 255.255.255.0
        broadcast 192.168.1.255
        network 192.168.1.0
        gateway 192.168.1.1

This causes the system to take much longer to boot up, as it hangs at the "Starting MTA" phase. Also, I'm no longer able to SSH into the system via eth1, which is a USB ethernet adapter I use for troubleshooting. On a semi-related note, upon attempting to plug a USB keyboard into the system, the kernel crashes, which was not the case when I was assembling the parts and installing the base OS. (These parts are all brand new.)

To anyone googling this, save yourself the hassle: RMA whatever hardware you have, and order something with a different brand of NIC on board. Intel and Broadcom seem to be more sociable.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Glenn English <ghe@slsware.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:31 PM, John McCardle wrote:

> I am trying to use a realtek NIC under Linux (Debian 7.1). It is the onboard ethernet in my Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3.

I'm sorry, I can't tell you how to make it go. But if it's any use, I can tell you what a known working IPv4 1000baseT/Full looks like on a Dell server I'm bringing up:

root@server:/etc/nsd3# lspci | egrep -i ethernet
04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5722 Gigabit Ethernet PCI Express

root@server:/etc/nsd3# cat /etc/network/interfaces
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).

# The loopback network interface
auto lo eth0
iface lo inet loopback
        allow-hotplug eth0

# The primary network interface
iface eth0 inet static
        address 192.168.2.202
        netmask 255.255.255.0
        broadcast 192.168.2.255
        network 192.168.2.0
        gateway 192.168.2.1
        # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed

root@server:/etc/nsd3# ifconfig eth0
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:26:b9:67:b6:ac
          inet addr:192.168.2.202  Bcast:192.168.2.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::226:b9ff:fe67:b6ac/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:7424 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:7228 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:787352 (768.8 KiB)  TX bytes:2108943 (2.0 MiB)
          Interrupt:17

root@server:/etc/nsd3# ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
        Supported ports: [ TP ]
        Supported link modes:   10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
                                100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
                                1000baseT/Half 1000baseT/Full
        Supported pause frame use: No
        Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
        Advertised link modes:  10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
                                100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
                                1000baseT/Half 1000baseT/Full
        Advertised pause frame use: Symmetric
        Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
        Speed: 1000Mb/s
        Duplex: Full
        Port: Twisted Pair
        PHYAD: 1
        Transceiver: internal
        Auto-negotiation: on
        MDI-X: Unknown
        Supports Wake-on: g
        Wake-on: d
        Current message level: 0x000000ff (255)
                               drv probe link timer ifdown ifup rx_err tx_err
        Link detected: yes

root@server:/etc/nsd3# ethtool -i eth0
driver: tg3
version: 3.121
firmware-version: 5722-v3.10
bus-info: 0000:04:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: no


What's that eth1 all about in your interfaces configuration? If eth0 is *the* onboard ethernet, might eth1 be confusing something?

--
Glenn English






Reply to: