I don't know what to tell you - This chipset has been rock solid for me.
I was a little confused when the name of the driver changed from rtl8139.o to
8139too.o (somewhere in the 2.4.x series), but that is the only speed bump I
have EVER had with 8139 cards.
In my experience, they're dirt cheap, and they work great. I have bought
dozens over the years under at least 3 or 4 different brand names, and have
always used Linux with them. I even have 2 or 3 spares at the moment.
tlj
El Jue 07 Ago 2003 01:01 PM, Eben King escribió:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Robert Eanes wrote:
> > --- Eben King <eben1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Robert Eanes wrote:
> > > > I have installed Core linux on an old PC350 with
> > >
> > > Module Support.
> > >
> > > > Everything comes up fine except for the Nic
> > >
> > > module... 8139too.o
> > >
> > > > I get unresolved symbols when trying to insmod it.
> > >
> > > What NIC do you have? Are you sure it uses an
> > > RTL8139? I had one NIC
> > > (whose suckiness was much higher than average) which
> > > had "8139" printed on
> > > the main chip, but was NOT an RTL8139 (or variant).
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it uses the RealTek chip driver 8139
> > or a variant... I've read that the older isa cards
> > could use the ne2000. This is a Belkin card with MPX
> > EN5038BB written on the chip.
>
> Nope, not what I had. I had some cheap Taiwanese card. What does "lspci"
> say about it?
>
> > I googled on the card and came up with the 8139too.o driver.
>
> I see "8139 clone?" in reference to FreeBSD. It might be that. Where did
> you find your information? I could not find any information abour Linux,
> only about FreeBSD.
>
> > if I compile in support for 8139 nic chips into the kernel instead of
> > compile as a module then it works fine.
>
> '"A solution exists." He goes back to bed.'
>
> > > I don't remember what type of card it was (it has
> > > since been replaced),
> > > but I apparently had to use the "fealnx" driver with
> > > it.
> >
> > I'll look into this one... who knows, it may work better than this one.
>
> I hope the "fealnx" driver is better now than when I tried it; it kept
> locking up under load, necessitating an "ifdown eth0; rmmod fealnx; ifup
> eth0" (or maybe it was the card that was flaky). I wrote a script that
> would hang around and do that when necessary, and announce when it had
> done so. Bouncing eth0 screwed up certain daemons badly (not as badly as
> eth0 locking up). Heavy use was punctuated by many "bouncing eth0"s.
>
> > I issued the following commands to compile the kernel and modules:
> >
> > make mrproper && make menuconfig
> > make dep && make bzImage
> > make modules && make modules_install
>
> Looks OK to me.
>
> > In any case, I would like to know if I'm missing
> > something simple in this whole process, and to know
> > why the module gets these unresolved symbolic
> > references... assuming it is the correct driver.
>
> If you get the "unresolved symbols" when you insmod, that's why you should
> use "modprobe" unless you have a good reason not to. modprobe maintains a
> list of dependencies for each module and loads them in order to satisfy
> any dependencies. insmod doesn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:16:45 EDT