[9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

Is anyone using the Pro/1000 PT quad adapter?  From what I can  
decipher from Intel's specs and ether82563.c, it 'should' work,  
perhaps with a bit of PCI id tweaking.  It would be nice to hear a  
"yup, it works" before I order one, though.

--lyndon

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[Pietro Gagliardi]

I thought PRO/1000 worked already (see the Wiki)

On Nov 12, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> Is anyone using the Pro/1000 PT quad adapter?  From what I can  
> decipher from Intel's specs and ether82563.c, it 'should' work,  
> perhaps with a bit of PCI id tweaking.  It would be nice to hear a  
> "yup, it works" before I order one, though.
>
> --lyndon

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2007-Nov-12, at 17:25 , Pietro Gagliardi wrote:

> I thought PRO/1000 worked already (see the Wiki)

There are a few different Pro/1000 variants.  I'm specifically  
interested in the Pro/1000-PT quad-port card.  It's based on the 82571  
(according to Intel's online spec's), which is supported by the  
driver.  I'm just concerned about any quirks or potential gotchas in  
relation to this specific card (e.g. PCI bus glue, phy interface, or  
what have you).

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[erik quanstrom]

> > I thought PRO/1000 worked already (see the Wiki)
> 
> There are a few different Pro/1000 variants.  I'm specifically  
> interested in the Pro/1000-PT quad-port card.  It's based on the 82571  
> (according to Intel's online spec's), which is supported by the  
> driver.  I'm just concerned about any quirks or potential gotchas in  
> relation to this specific card (e.g. PCI bus glue, phy interface, or  
> what have you).

it's all supported.

the pro/1000 PT has 2 82571 controllers and a pcie/pcie switch
(i forget the company that makes that thing).  it's a very fancy
bit of hardware.

the pcie generation of intel nics are pretty good.  for the most
part, one can ignore the phy.  i wish they'd do it like myricom,
though.  myricom thinks the driver is on a need-to-know basis
about the mac/phy.  and the driver doesn't need to know.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[erik quanstrom]

yes.  we are using that adapter.  there should be no vid/did tweaking.
(some motherboards may need bios updates to correctly implement
the interrupt swizzling spec.)

all pcie-based gigabit intel controllers should be supported by plan 9.

by the way, we've found the pro/1000 pt dual to be more cost-effective.
if you have too many ports to use 2 dual cards, it would probablly be
more effective to use myricom cards with 10gbaseCX4 ports.  interrupt
coalescing isn't very effective on multiple ports.  there's a nice 24gbe+2cx4
hp procurve switch for less than three grand.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2007-Nov-12, at 17:34 , erik quanstrom wrote:

> by the way, we've found the pro/1000 pt dual to be more cost- 
> effective.
> if you have too many ports to use 2 dual cards, it would probablly be
> more effective to use myricom cards with 10gbaseCX4 ports

Thanks for the info Erik.  I'll do a cost comparison between the 2x2  
vs. 1x4 config.  Traffic volume isn't a big concern — this is for a  
machine that will be a (mostly) passive network monitor for several  
LAN segments at a remote site.

--lyndon

Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?

[erik quanstrom]

you're welcome.

- erik