topic Re: Mismatch in link detection? in Operating System - Linux

Mismatch in link detection?

Rexamania — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:51:00 GMT

I need some help with getting a cross-connect to work.

On one server, the link is detected by mii-tool, but not ethtool.

Is it a possibility of driver problem?

Any help is appreciated.

*** SERVER A ***

~>mii-tool -v eth2
eth2: negotiated 100baseTx-FD flow-control, link ok
product info: vendor 00:aa:00, model 56 rev 0
basic mode: autonegotiation enabled
basic status: autonegotiation complete, link ok
capabilities: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD
advertising: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control
link partner: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control

~>ethtool eth2
Settings for eth2:
Supported ports: [ TP ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: Unknown! (65535)
Duplex: Unknown! (255)
Port: Twisted Pair
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Supports Wake-on: umbg
Wake-on: d
Current message level: 0x00000007 (7)
Link detected: no

"ifconfig" is showing UP, but not RUNNING.

eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1F:29:61:75:2D
inet addr:192.168.101.4 Bcast:192.168.101.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
Base address:0x5000 Memory:fdbe0000-fdc00000

The server on the other end is able to see the link and is RUNNING.

*** SERVER B ***

~>mii-tool -v eth1
eth1: negotiated 100baseTx-FD flow-control, link ok
product info: Intel 82555 rev 4
basic mode: autonegotiation enabled
basic status: autonegotiation complete, link ok
capabilities: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD
advertising: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control
link partner: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control

~>ethtool eth1
Settings for eth1:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 100Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Supports Wake-on: g
Wake-on: g
Current message level: 0x00000007 (7)
Link detected: yes

~>ifconfig eth1
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:02:B3:A6:40:35
inet addr:192.168.101.1 Bcast:192.168.101.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:29788830 errors:362 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:362
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1251131084 (1193.1 Mb)

*** SERVER A ***
Hardware : HP DL380 G5
OS : Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3 (Taroon Update 9)
Kernel : 2.4.21-50.ELsmp
NIC Drv : e1000-7.4.24b-1 (From HP)

Best regards

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Hemmetter — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:44:48 GMT

Hi,

try to set network settings on both servers fixed to 100FD/autoneg off.

# ethtool -s ethX speed 100 duplex full autoneg off

then try again.

rgds
HGH

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Rexamania — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:15:26 GMT

Tried, but unfortunately no luck.

Best regards

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Hemmetter — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:23:13 GMT

Hi again,

what i forgot in my first reply:
"Welcome to itrc-Forums!"

Your network is with a "Cross over cable", right?

Maybe a cable problem or a HW-problenm with one of your NICS. Check the cable and if possible use another NIC or check against an other device, e.g. notebook.

rgds
HGH

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Rexamania — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:57:02 GMT

Thanks.

I can't physically check it myself as the systems are in a remote location.

The DC technician has double confirmed that a cross-over cable is in place.

I am baffled by the fact that one system is able to see it, but not the other.

The NIC in question has quad interfaces, switching to all the other interfaces shows the same result.
Therefore, I am thinking that it may be a driver problem, but I need some helps to confirm it.

Best regards

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Hemmetter — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:27:48 GMT

Hi,

As you can see in "ifconfig eth1" output

~>ifconfig eth1
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:02:B3:A6:40:35
inet addr:192.168.101.1 Bcast:192.168.101.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:29788830 errors:362 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:362
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1251131084 (1193.1 Mb)

There are TX errors:362
and "carrier: 362" this point to HW issue and would explain the symptom.

rgds
HGH

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

rick jones — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:19:53 GMT

Gigabit capable NICs are required to support AutoMDIX, which means that while one can still use a cross-over cable for a back-to-back connection, it is not required. A straight-through cable can be used and the NIC (the PHY I think) will figure it all out.

Also, since they are required by the spec to support autoneg, autoneg in GbE NIC should be rather solid. Of course, it seems that one of your NICs (the one in server B) is a 10/100 NIC only.

You might check dmesg output on both systems. Perhaps on system A there is a dmesg entry explianing why it thinks there is no link.

Re: Mismatch in link detection?

Rexamania — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:52:35 GMT

Hi,

Unfortunately, dmesg does not show anything interesting in the link detection.

As for the carrier errors, this is interesting.
This is a new hardware, probability of HW problem is low, but still possible.

Or could it be NIC HW mismatch?
Server A is a newer system whereas Server B is several years older.

Best regards