jjf@fibercom.COM (Jeff Fitzgerald) (06/03/91)
Hi, I'm looking for comments on the Intel 82596CA. This is there latest lan controller. I used the 82586 many years ago and ran into all of the (now well-known) problems. Needless to say I'm a little leary of using this part without some good references. We would be using the part in 32-bit linear mode (flat address space) with the 'simple' memory structure in a high performance application with the controller in promiscuous mode. I'd be interested in any problems or quirks people have run into (in this or other modes). Thanks, Jeff Fitzgerald jjf@fibercom.com -- Jeffrey J. Fitzgerald INET: jjf@fibercom.com FiberCom, Inc. UUCP: ..!uunet!fibercom!jjf P.O. Box 11966 PHONE: (703) 342-6700 X255 Roanoke, VA 24022-1966 FAX: (703) 342-5961
bpetry@systech.bjorn.COM (Brian Petry) (06/05/91)
In article <18057@fincastle.fibercom.COM> jjf@fibercom.COM (Jeff Fitzgerald) writes: >Hi, > I'm looking for comments on the Intel 82596CA. This is there >latest lan controller. I used the 82586 many years ago and ran into >all of the (now well-known) problems. Needless to say I'm a little >leary of using this part without some good references. We would be >using the part in 32-bit linear mode (flat address space) with the >'simple' memory structure in a high performance application with the >controller in promiscuous mode. I'd be interested in any problems >or quirks people have run into (in this or other modes). > We are using the 82596CA in 32-bit linear mode with the 'flexible' memory structure and run into one of Intel's published errata. The symptom is that sometimes, during a collision, the transmitter locks up the whole chip, both receive and transmit. The work-around involves a watch-dog timer. But Intel claims that the problem will not be encountered if you choose the 'simple' memory structure. Other than that problem, though, we have had great success with the performance of the device. Regards, Brian Petry uunet!systech!bpetry