by Is the 3c507 a screwy card or is it just the alpha driver? (It's a
relative of the Intel EtherExpress, so it's probably a brain damaged
card) I've found that I have to use a smaller mtu (1000 instead of
1500) and perhaps I should make it smaller still.
For a while I thought I had an mtu problem with the router on the
other end of a 56k link, but other machines on our radio club's
ethernet work OK with mtu 1500, including the router on our side of
the 56k net. I had problems with tcp connections locking up on the
3c507 machine when the mtu was 1500 (I was running Linux 1.1.47, now
upgraded to 1.1.64, but I haven't tried it with a 1500 mtu yet).
Then I noticed problems on the local ethernet with ping. I would try
ping -s 992 -c 100 and then:
3c507 linux 486-25 to 3c509 windows for workgroups 486-25
45-50% packet loss!
(I can reduce the ping size further, down do around 950 approximately,
and pings then get get 0% loss)
3c507 linux 486-25 to 8bit Depca card, linux 386SX-16
0 % packet loss
8bit Depca linux 386SX-16 to Windows for Workgroups 486-25
0 % packet loss
(If you haven't seen a DEC Depca card before, it's a hoot: full length
8 bit card that gets very toasty. Pretty solid driver though...)
The Windows 3.11 machine has the latest Microsoft TCP/IP stack; but I
think it's using the original 3c509 driver; perhaps that needs
updating. Linux 1.1.64/65 on the other machines.
Would the 3c507 work better in a slower machine? Perhaps I should play
musical ethernet cards and see if things are better (timing/driver
differences) if I move the ethernet cards around.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BogoMIPS Research Labs -- bogosity research & simulation -- VE7JPM --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------