getting intel pro GT to work with 8.3.0

[Ibrahim Mujahid]

i have searched the forums but cant find anything

i want to upgrade the onboard NIC for obvious reasons




i have freenas 8.3.0 x32 it is using the em0 driver


is there anything else i need to do. i thought intel NICs were well supported

i can get old and slower NICs to work so im sure the problem is freenas

 

[cyberjock]

The extent of installing the card is "Is it plugged into the motherboad?"

If you are getting em0 then that is your Intel NIC. In fact, just minutes ago I plugged in my Intel GT card to a FreeNAS server and it came right up.

If yours isn't working then you should check your network settings.

 

[Ibrahim Mujahid]

thanks for testing a GT card for me at least thats one thing i can rule out.

i have three different brand new GT cards (two of them are OEM)

i have used an old NIC in the same PCI slot which works fine so i dont think the PCI slot is faulty

i have tried putting a GT card on DHCP and no luck

ive given the GT card a static IP outside of the pool and still not working

my motherboard is gigabyte mini-itx GA-D525TUD

the onboard LAN works fine (Realtek RTL8111E) with very similar IP and mask
i cannot ping freenas using a GT card

im getting desperate now - ive even tried booting it up with the storage drives taken out to see if the PSU is overloaded (180W)

any ideas how i can get it to work anyone have a clue what problem could be?

i'll try anything

 

[cyberjock]

I don't know what to say.. if it's not working I'd assume its a hardware problem/incompatibility. Some OEM cards only work with the same manufacturer's hardware. I can't say I've seen that with network cards, but its a possibility.

Honestly, since it's an Intel Atom, your Realtek will probably work fine. It's not exactly a high performing card, but it'll definitely be CPU limited from what I've seen of other people with Atoms on the forum.

 

[Ibrahim Mujahid]

im managing to get upto 100mb/s with a re0 and re1 so i cant complain

i never considered the processor to be the bottleneck
thanks for help

 

[cyberjock]

You should be getting better than that. Total throughput by people has been 200-400Mbit/sec if I remember correctly. Perhaps you have a 100Mb network switch?

 

[jgreco]

100mb/s

There's a reason that shift key is on your keyboard...

This is ambiguous.

If you had said "100MB/sec", that'd mean 100 megabytes per second, which would be respectable with a crummy network interface.

If you had said "100Mb/sec", that'd mean 100 megabits per second, which would be awful.

But "100mb/s" doesn't clearly mean either. Of course, some people will misuse the above terms anyways, so if you want to continue your shift-less (haha) existence, please consider writing "100mbits/sec" or "100mbytes/sec" and people will not have to puzzle out what you mean.

 

[Ibrahim Mujahid]

Deep sigh !

 

[cyberjock]

Technically jgreco is correct. There's been quite a few threads where people confuse mb and MB and Mb. Frankly, I used to want to castrate people that couldn't use the correct terms since they make a BIG difference. If my FreeNAS server copies at 100MB/sec that's a great speed. But at 100Mb/sec that's terrible and something is wrong.

"Mega" is represented by a capital M, not a lower case.

 

[Ibrahim Mujahid]

i am aware of this but it was obvious what i meant

whoops sorry jgreco

I am aware of this but it was obvious what i meant.


------

any sentence that begins with 'technically' contains inaccurate advice.

and thanks for the help