Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Daniel Ouellet
Hi,

Would it be possible to get some clarification on what would work and
not for the 10Gb Intel network cards?

I compare the man page, both man(4) ixgb and man(4) ix as well as the
hardware section and looked at the data from Intel to find more in
trying to answer that question.

But I am still looking for confirmation of the support or not in OpenBSD
for some of them. I get conflicting information and I am not sure what
is real.

The hardware compatible page do list:
# Intel 82597 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ixgb)
# Intel 82598 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ix)

The man(4) ixgb show the 82597, fine.

The man(4) ix does list the 82598AF, 82598EB, 82598AT and 82599EB as
well and the X520 series SFP models, X520,DA2, X520-SR1, X520-SR2,
X520-LR1 but not the RJ-45 model X520-T1 based on the same 82599ES.

But again the man(4) ix do not list the 82599ES as a supported chipset,
but that's what is in the X520 SFP series.

Looking more at Intel to try to figure this out here:

http://download.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/prodbrf/252454.pdf

I see all the listed model in the man page X520-DA2, X520-SR1, X520-SR2,
X520-LR1 are all based on the 82599ES, but then the 82599ES is not
listed in the chipset in that man page, however these cards works based
on the man page and then the X520-T2 is also based on the same chip
82599ES as well. So, it should work right and should be in the list or
am I missing something?

What about the Intel 10 Gigabits AT2 then. It's designed with the
82598EB and that's on the man page, but not listed in hardware, anyone
knows if that works or not?

Based on the man page, the X520-T1 may be wouldn't work, but looking at
what chip it used and what other model are supported it should also
work. I would appreciate confirmation or denial here and possibly an
update to the man page to clarify that?

Anyone have one of these and can tell for sure if that's true or not?

So, shouldn't the 82599ES be added to the man page if the X520 series
are all supported then?

And possibly the X520-T1 as well as it does use the same chipset, but
only the difference in the connector or am I missing something here?

I would appreciated some feedback either way as spending $600+ to find
out if it doesn't is a  bit hard. (;>

Best,

Daniel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Jonathan Gray
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to get some clarification on what would work
> and not for the 10Gb Intel network cards?
>
> I compare the man page, both man(4) ixgb and man(4) ix as well as
> the hardware section and looked at the data from Intel to find more
> in trying to answer that question.
>
> But I am still looking for confirmation of the support or not in
> OpenBSD for some of them. I get conflicting information and I am not
> sure what is real.
>
> The hardware compatible page do list:
> # Intel 82597 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ixgb)
> # Intel 82598 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ix)
>
> The man(4) ixgb show the 82597, fine.
>
> The man(4) ix does list the 82598AF, 82598EB, 82598AT and 82599EB as
> well and the X520 series SFP models, X520,DA2, X520-SR1, X520-SR2,
> X520-LR1 but not the RJ-45 model X520-T1 based on the same 82599ES.
>
> But again the man(4) ix do not list the 82599ES as a supported
> chipset, but that's what is in the X520 SFP series.

The intel product documents are confused about which chips they
use.  The clearest split is something along the lines of:

7 82599EB -- PCI Express* (PCIe*) 2.0, dual port 10 Gigabit
    Ethernet controller
7 82599ES -- Serial 10 GbE backplane interface for blade
    implementations (includes the 82599EB SKU functionality plus serial).

>
> Looking more at Intel to try to figure this out here:
>
> http://download.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/prodbrf/252454.pdf
>
> I see all the listed model in the man page X520-DA2, X520-SR1,
> X520-SR2, X520-LR1 are all based on the 82599ES, but then the
> 82599ES is not listed in the chipset in that man page, however these
> cards works based on the man page and then the X520-T2 is also based
> on the same chip 82599ES as well. So, it should work right and
> should be in the list or am I missing something?
>
> What about the Intel 10 Gigabits AT2 then. It's designed with the
> 82598EB and that's on the man page, but not listed in hardware,
> anyone knows if that works or not?
>
> Based on the man page, the X520-T1 may be wouldn't work, but looking
> at what chip it used and what other model are supported it should
> also work. I would appreciate confirmation or denial here and
> possibly an update to the man page to clarify that?
>
> Anyone have one of these and can tell for sure if that's true or not?
>
> So, shouldn't the 82599ES be added to the man page if the X520
> series are all supported then?
>
> And possibly the X520-T1 as well as it does use the same chipset,
> but only the difference in the connector or am I missing something
> here?
>
> I would appreciated some feedback either way as spending $600+ to
> find out if it doesn't is a  bit hard. (;>

There are mentions of 82598 10GbaseT working, I don't see why
82599 10GbaseT wouldn't work off hand.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Daniel Ouellet
On 3/3/11 3:28 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would it be possible to get some clarification on what would work
>> and not for the 10Gb Intel network cards?
>>
>> I compare the man page, both man(4) ixgb and man(4) ix as well as
>> the hardware section and looked at the data from Intel to find more
>> in trying to answer that question.
>>
>> But I am still looking for confirmation of the support or not in
>> OpenBSD for some of them. I get conflicting information and I am not
>> sure what is real.
>>
>> The hardware compatible page do list:
>> # Intel 82597 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ixgb)
>> # Intel 82598 PRO/10GbE based PCI adapters (ix)
>>
>> The man(4) ixgb show the 82597, fine.
>>
>> The man(4) ix does list the 82598AF, 82598EB, 82598AT and 82599EB as
>> well and the X520 series SFP models, X520,DA2, X520-SR1, X520-SR2,
>> X520-LR1 but not the RJ-45 model X520-T1 based on the same 82599ES.
>>
>> But again the man(4) ix do not list the 82599ES as a supported
>> chipset, but that's what is in the X520 SFP series.
>
> The intel product documents are confused about which chips they
> use.  The clearest split is something along the lines of:
>
> 7 82599EB -- PCI Express* (PCIe*) 2.0, dual port 10 Gigabit
>      Ethernet controller
> 7 82599ES -- Serial 10 GbE backplane interface for blade
>      implementations (includes the 82599EB SKU functionality plus serial).

Well the document may be confused, but then, what am I suppose to used
then? I used the documentation I can find and read it to find the
answer. If that's also wrong, how am I suppose to find out then?

I will go look for more technical specs sheet then, but still I would
love to know the answer for sure if anyone actually know that first
hand. I am confuse, the man page appear to be confuse, the Intel
documentation is cnfuse based on what you say too. So, everyone is
confuse. So, some clarification would be welcome.

>> Looking more at Intel to try to figure this out here:
>>
>> http://download.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/prodbrf/252454.pdf
>>
>> I see all the listed model in the man page X520-DA2, X520-SR1,
>> X520-SR2, X520-LR1 are all based on the 82599ES, but then the
>> 82599ES is not listed in the chipset in that man page, however these
>> cards works based on the man page and then the X520-T2 is also based
>> on the same chip 82599ES as well. So, it should work right and
>> should be in the list or am I missing something?
>>
>> What about the Intel 10 Gigabits AT2 then. It's designed with the
>> 82598EB and that's on the man page, but not listed in hardware,
>> anyone knows if that works or not?
>>
>> Based on the man page, the X520-T1 may be wouldn't work, but looking
>> at what chip it used and what other model are supported it should
>> also work. I would appreciate confirmation or denial here and
>> possibly an update to the man page to clarify that?
>>
>> Anyone have one of these and can tell for sure if that's true or not?
>>
>> So, shouldn't the 82599ES be added to the man page if the X520
>> series are all supported then?
>>
>> And possibly the X520-T1 as well as it does use the same chipset,
>> but only the difference in the connector or am I missing something
>> here?
>>
>> I would appreciated some feedback either way as spending $600+ to
>> find out if it doesn't is a  bit hard. (;>
>
> There are mentions of 82598 10GbaseT working, I don't see why
> 82599 10GbaseT wouldn't work off hand.

That could well be, but I learn many years ago to do my homework first
on hardware support with OpenBSD and even if that may well be possible,
it doesn't make it so however. It's a bit pricey to find out if yes or
no that would work, so that's why I asked first if someone n the know
might have one first here.

The analogies is the same, they have 82574 working, so why not the 82576
right? But it is not working as well and hardware wanted was fro the
82576 as well as for the 82580. The 82580 was taken care of a few weeks
ago based on feedback on misc@.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it, but I would fell more
comfortable to be in the know I must say and I am not.

Best and thanks for your time.

Best,

Daniel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Daniel Ouellet
In reply to this post by Jonathan Gray
Hi Jonathan,

> The intel product documents are confused about which chips they
> use.  The clearest split is something along the lines of:
>
> 7 82599EB -- PCI Express* (PCIe*) 2.0, dual port 10 Gigabit
>      Ethernet controller
> 7 82599ES -- Serial 10 GbE backplane interface for blade
>      implementations (includes the 82599EB SKU functionality plus serial).

I read this again slower this time. First time I assume you wrote the
82598EB and 82599ES. Sorry about my bad ready here. I guess I spend to
many days trying to find out and get all my chipset number confuse agian.

In any case if I understand you properly as the Serial one are working,
there isn't any reason that the other wouldn't as it's the same chipset
basically without the added serial part?

And as the serial SFP model are working already then this wold be find too?

> There are mentions of 82598 10GbaseT working, I don't see why
> 82599 10GbaseT wouldn't work off hand.

On this one, I will make a leap of fate here. I suppose you are right.
Would be nice to know for sure anyway. The only way to know if for me to
gt one I guess and test it for real.

Best,

Daniel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

FRLinux-2
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On this one, I will make a leap of fate here. I suppose you are right. Would
> be nice to know for sure anyway. The only way to know if for me to gt one I
> guess and test it for real.

leap of faith you mean? :D

Steph

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Daniel Ouellet
On 3/3/11 3:16 PM, FRLinux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Ouellet<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On this one, I will make a leap of fate here. I suppose you are right. Would
>> be nice to know for sure anyway. The only way to know if for me to gt one I
>> guess and test it for real.
>
> leap of faith you mean? :D

Yes I guess you are right! (;> Many wrong words in my text, but I try.
At a minimum, you got the meaning of it. Read phonetic and you will get
it! (;>

Sorry about that. But you got my drift anyway....

Best,

Daniel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Jonathan Gray
In reply to this post by Daniel Ouellet
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:35:58PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:

> >There are mentions of 82598 10GbaseT working, I don't see why
> >82599 10GbaseT wouldn't work off hand.
>
> That could well be, but I learn many years ago to do my homework
> first on hardware support with OpenBSD and even if that may well be
> possible, it doesn't make it so however. It's a bit pricey to find
> out if yes or no that would work, so that's why I asked first if
> someone n the know might have one first here.
>
> The analogies is the same, they have 82574 working, so why not the
> 82576 right? But it is not working as well and hardware wanted was
> fro the 82576 as well as for the 82580. The 82580 was taken care of
> a few weeks ago based on feedback on misc@.

The 82599ES and 82599EB are essentially the same chip, it should
work fine and if not I expect it will only need minor changes.
ix still needs to be introduced to ifmedia properly though so
the media state may not be shown properly but this is a problem
shared by everything supported by ix and the link will still work.

The 82576 is quite different to 82574 it is closer in design to
the ix chips (as is the 82575).  The 82580 is almost malicously
different to other em chips and is the source of some pain to me.
I have parts of it working but not all of it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would appreciate clarification on supported 10Gb Intel to resolve conflict between man and hardware section.

Daniel Ouellet
On 3/3/11 3:51 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:35:58PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>>> There are mentions of 82598 10GbaseT working, I don't see why
>>> 82599 10GbaseT wouldn't work off hand.
>>
>> That could well be, but I learn many years ago to do my homework
>> first on hardware support with OpenBSD and even if that may well be
>> possible, it doesn't make it so however. It's a bit pricey to find
>> out if yes or no that would work, so that's why I asked first if
>> someone n the know might have one first here.
>>
>> The analogies is the same, they have 82574 working, so why not the
>> 82576 right? But it is not working as well and hardware wanted was
>> fro the 82576 as well as for the 82580. The 82580 was taken care of
>> a few weeks ago based on feedback on misc@.
>
> The 82599ES and 82599EB are essentially the same chip, it should
> work fine and if not I expect it will only need minor changes.
> ix still needs to be introduced to ifmedia properly though so
> the media state may not be shown properly but this is a problem
> shared by everything supported by ix and the link will still work.
>
> The 82576 is quite different to 82574 it is closer in design to
> the ix chips (as is the 82575).  The 82580 is almost malicously
> different to other em chips and is the source of some pain to me.
> I have parts of it working but not all of it.

Many thanks for your details. I will fly with it and see then.