-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Yesterday I wanted to update my small laptop (on Leap 15.2), and I connected it to the ethernet cable, but the laptop did not recognize it. If run "rcnetwork restart" it would appear, but would not connect to anything. At first I thought "dns trouble", but then I found that a ping 8.8.8.8 failed as well. I left it at that and switched ti WiFi, and performed the update, hoping that would cure the problem. Today I rebooted, with a newer kernel, and the cable connected from the start. After opening the desktop (I'm using Network Manager), I observed ini gkrellm that the interface eth0 was appearing and disapearing every minute or so. After a while, it became stable. It is not the cable, moving it has no effect. Message log: <https://susepaste.org/51821193> (I see the interface is going on and off again, in the log) Obviously, I have tried another cable, connected to another port of the switch. Same trouble. The switch led is solid green, but the computer does not see it. "rcnetwork restart" makes it appear with the correct IP, but a ping to the router (by number) fails. In fact, after removing the cable completely and issuing the command again, ifconfig reports that eth0 keeps the same address, but wlan has no address, and I can no longer connect to it. Ping to router from machine fails. Manually telling NM to dissconnect the ethernet (which cable was removed minutes ago) allows the wifi to work again. Second part of messages log: <https://susepaste.org/63312588> What is going on? This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHoEARECADoWIQQZEb51mJKK1KpcU/W1MxgcbY1H1QUCYZ4p/Bwccm9iaW4ubGlz dGFzQHRlbGVmb25pY2EubmV0AAoJELUzGBxtjUfV3pAAn3ji0olpKPHiklGVVp/5 sPFsVbO9AKCV/fG9rlt9K0khax47qv2dswWz4g== =5vrF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [11-24-21 07:05]:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Yesterday I wanted to update my small laptop (on Leap 15.2), and I connected it to the ethernet cable, but the laptop did not recognize it. If run "rcnetwork restart" it would appear, but would not connect to anything. At first I thought "dns trouble", but then I found that a ping 8.8.8.8 failed as well. I left it at that and switched ti WiFi, and performed the update, hoping that would cure the problem.
Today I rebooted, with a newer kernel, and the cable connected from the start. After opening the desktop (I'm using Network Manager), I observed ini gkrellm that the interface eth0 was appearing and disapearing every minute or so. After a while, it became stable.
It is not the cable, moving it has no effect.
Message log:
<https://susepaste.org/51821193>
(I see the interface is going on and off again, in the log)
Obviously, I have tried another cable, connected to another port of the switch. Same trouble. The switch led is solid green, but the computer does not see it. "rcnetwork restart" makes it appear with the correct IP, but a ping to the router (by number) fails.
In fact, after removing the cable completely and issuing the command again, ifconfig reports that eth0 keeps the same address, but wlan has no address, and I can no longer connect to it. Ping to router from machine fails. Manually telling NM to dissconnect the ethernet (which cable was removed minutes ago) allows the wifi to work again.
Second part of messages log: <https://susepaste.org/63312588>
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
- -- Cheers
Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHoEARECADoWIQQZEb51mJKK1KpcU/W1MxgcbY1H1QUCYZ4p/Bwccm9iaW4ubGlz dGFzQHRlbGVmb25pY2EubmV0AAoJELUzGBxtjUfV3pAAn3ji0olpKPHiklGVVp/5 sPFsVbO9AKCV/fG9rlt9K0khax47qv2dswWz4g== =5vrF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a hardward check? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times... all things are as they were then, but were you there?
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 24/11/2021 14.45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS.
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000, because one of them is in use with another laptop just fine, at 100. But it worked in the past with this laptop just fine. Weird. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [11-24-21 17:27]:
On 24/11/2021 14.45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS.
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000, because one of them is in use with another laptop just fine, at 100. But it worked in the past with this laptop just fine.
Weird.
but the cable *is* hardware. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times... all things are as they were then, but were you there?
On 24/11/2021 23.29, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 17:27]:
On 24/11/2021 14.45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS.
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000, because one of them is in use with another laptop just fine, at 100. But it worked in the past with this laptop just fine.
Weird.
but the cable *is* hardware.
But not the machine. A cable is replaceable, a laptop port is not. Not easily, anyway, not by myself. It is an expensive ordeal. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [11-24-21 17:35]:
On 24/11/2021 23.29, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 17:27]:
On 24/11/2021 14.45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS.
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000, because one of them is in use with another laptop just fine, at 100. But it worked in the past with this laptop just fine.
Weird.
but the cable *is* hardware.
But not the machine. A cable is replaceable, a laptop port is not. Not easily, anyway, not by myself. It is an expensive ordeal.
well, earlier you said, "one of those", implying more than one cable was tried ???? but still failure, which would indicate both bad cables or the port and all are hardware and hardware is not exclusively "computer". -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times... all things are as they were then, but were you there?
On 24/11/2021 23.39, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [11-24-21 17:35]:
On 24/11/2021 23.29, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 17:27]:
On 24/11/2021 14.45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 24/11/2021 14.28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [11-24-21 07:05]:
What is going on?
This laptop worked previously, days ago. With the same cables. Another laptop works fine with one of those cables.
uneducated guess would be failing hardware. does your bios have a
hardward
check?
No, but I will try another OS.
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000, because one of them is in use with another laptop just fine, at 100. But it worked in the past with this laptop just fine.
Weird.
but the cable *is* hardware.
But not the machine. A cable is replaceable, a laptop port is not. Not easily, anyway, not by myself. It is an expensive ordeal.
well, earlier you said, "one of those", implying more than one cable was tried ???? but still failure, which would indicate both bad cables or the port and all are hardware and hardware is not exclusively "computer".
I had tried two old cables, one on laptop 1 (wich only does 100 mbits) and another on laptop 2, the current incumbent, which should do 1gbit. Laptop 1 (with cable 1) was working the other day. Laptop 2 (with cable 2) failed to connect, but it had worked maybe two weeks before, IIRC. Cable is cat 5E. Laptop 2 also failed to connect on cable 1 (cat 5). Then you say it could be hardware. I try to boot laptop 2 on another partition that has Leap 15.0, fails to boot. Then boot Windows, which says there is no connection. I pick an almost brand new cable from suitcase, cat 6, and use it on laptop 2, on a free port of the switch. Works instantly. Suspicion is that cable 1 and 2 fail to do gigabit, now, but worked previously. Maybe some parameter changed? Chance? However, cable 3 had given my trouble with laptop 2 on another location, but that was definitely a DNS problem. When I had problems yesterday, I immediately thought I had DNS trouble again (which indeed I had, but was not the main trouble). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000,
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (2.9°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland.
On 27/11/2021 18.39, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
It appears to be the cable. I swapped to a commercially made cable, and it works. Maybe those two old cables only works at 100, not 1000,
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower.
Cable itself is CAT5. All wires are connected properly, I wired them myself, and the cable has been working some years. Suddenly it doesn't work. Change of criteria, instead of lowering the speed, perhaps? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 2021-11-27 2:24 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower.
Cable itself is CAT5. All wires are connected properly, I wired them myself, and the cable has been working some years. Suddenly it doesn't work. Change of criteria, instead of lowering the speed, perhaps?
That cable has likely failed, forcing a drop to 100 Mb. With patch cords so cheap, I can't be bothered to make them.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 15:35:22 -0500 James Knott <james.knott@jknott.net> wrote:
On 2021-11-27 2:24 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower.
Cable itself is CAT5. All wires are connected properly, I wired them myself, and the cable has been working some years. Suddenly it doesn't work. Change of criteria, instead of lowering the speed, perhaps?
That cable has likely failed, forcing a drop to 100 Mb. With patch cords so cheap, I can't be bothered to make them.
I agree but if Carlos makes his own then perhaps he has an Ethernet cable tester? (full disclosure, I'm sad enough that I do) If so then testing the cable is definitely something to try.
On 27/11/2021 21.38, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 15:35:22 -0500 James Knott <james.knott@jknott.net> wrote:
On 2021-11-27 2:24 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower.
Cable itself is CAT5. All wires are connected properly, I wired them myself, and the cable has been working some years. Suddenly it doesn't work. Change of criteria, instead of lowering the speed, perhaps?
That cable has likely failed, forcing a drop to 100 Mb. With patch cords so cheap, I can't be bothered to make them.
I agree but if Carlos makes his own then perhaps he has an Ethernet cable tester? (full disclosure, I'm sad enough that I do) If so then testing the cable is definitely something to try.
No, I don't. And certainly not a gigabit tester, I might have bought one for 100 mbits back then. No, I tested by connecting them and watching the error rate after transmitting files in both directions. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 2021-11-27 3:59 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
I agree but if Carlos makes his own then perhaps he has an Ethernet cable tester? (full disclosure, I'm sad enough that I do) If so then testing the cable is definitely something to try.
No, I don't. And certainly not a gigabit tester, I might have bought one for 100 mbits back then. No, I tested by connecting them and watching the error rate after transmitting files in both directions.
--
Continuity testers are cheap. They'll tell you if the cable is wired correctly, open connections, etc..
On 27/11/2021 22.20, James Knott wrote:
On 2021-11-27 3:59 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
I agree but if Carlos makes his own then perhaps he has an Ethernet cable tester? (full disclosure, I'm sad enough that I do) If so then testing the cable is definitely something to try.
No, I don't. And certainly not a gigabit tester, I might have bought one for 100 mbits back then. No, I tested by connecting them and watching the error rate after transmitting files in both directions.
--
Continuity testers are cheap. They'll tell you if the cable is wired correctly, open connections, etc..
A continuity tester is not enough. I have a normal multimeter which can be used with some care to test an ethernet cable. But a continuity tester doesn't find out if the pairs are connected properly: you know that the two pin in the centre are a pair, surrounded by another pair, but pins 1&2 are a pair. It is not 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8 (which makes it a pain to connect the cable to the jack, it uses a weir sorting. AND if you don't follow the proper sorting (there were cables like that), a proper tester finds out. The cable works at 10 mbps, but not 100 mbps. But in both cases, good and bad, an continuity testers finds no problem (pin 4 is connected to pin 4 on the other end, etc). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 2021-11-27 4:36 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
A continuity tester is not enough.
I have a normal multimeter which can be used with some care to test an ethernet cable. But a continuity tester doesn't find out if the pairs are connected properly: you know that the two pin in the centre are a pair, surrounded by another pair, but pins 1&2 are a pair. It is not 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8 (which makes it a pain to connect the cable to the jack, it uses a weir sorting. AND if you don't follow the proper sorting (there were cables like that), a proper tester finds out. The cable works at 10 mbps, but not 100 mbps. But in both cases, good and bad, an continuity testers finds no problem (pin 4 is connected to pin 4 on the other end, etc).
First off, I have connected many Ethernet cables, mostly in office where I connect jacks to a patch panel. I keep a tester similar to this one in my computer bag. https://www.amazon.ca/Flexzion-Network-Ethernet-Indication-Countunuity/dp/B017SM0G1U/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=Network+Cable+Tester&qid=1638049041&sr=8-6 Wiring errors or failed connections will cause the connection to drop from Gb to 100Mb, but I've never heard of that dropping to 10Mb. Regardless, if you actually need a better tester, get one, but the continuity tester meets my needs, unless the customer wants certification. Also, the wire order is not weird if you know the history of how StarLAN, which became 10baseT was designed to work over existing telephone cables which were 3 pair CAT3. With that phone cable, the middle pair was the phone the next pair was on either side of it and again with the 3rd pair. After moving to 4 pair cable, there were individual pairs available on either side of the cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLAN
On 27/11/2021 23.05, James Knott wrote:
On 2021-11-27 4:36 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
A continuity tester is not enough.
I have a normal multimeter which can be used with some care to test an ethernet cable. But a continuity tester doesn't find out if the pairs are connected properly: you know that the two pin in the centre are a pair, surrounded by another pair, but pins 1&2 are a pair. It is not 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8 (which makes it a pain to connect the cable to the jack, it uses a weir sorting. AND if you don't follow the proper sorting (there were cables like that), a proper tester finds out. The cable works at 10 mbps, but not 100 mbps. But in both cases, good and bad, an continuity testers finds no problem (pin 4 is connected to pin 4 on the other end, etc).
First off, I have connected many Ethernet cables, mostly in office where I connect jacks to a patch panel. I keep a tester similar to this one in my computer bag. https://www.amazon.ca/Flexzion-Network-Ethernet-Indication-Countunuity/dp/B017SM0G1U/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=Network+Cable+Tester&qid=1638049041&sr=8-6
Wiring errors or failed connections will cause the connection to drop from Gb to 100Mb, but I've never heard of that dropping to 10Mb.
Happened to me :-) I spotted those cables visually, wrong colours. At a telecom head office, no less ;-)
Regardless, if you actually need a better tester, get one, but the continuity tester meets my needs, unless the customer wants certification.
A good continuity tester, like the one in the link, certainly finds connection problems. For that price I will get one, they were more expensive when I tried a decade ago.
Also, the wire order is not weird if you know the history of how StarLAN, which became 10baseT was designed to work over existing telephone cables which were 3 pair CAT3. With that phone cable, the middle pair was the phone the next pair was on either side of it and again with the 3rd pair. After moving to 4 pair cable, there were individual pairs available on either side of the cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLAN
I don't know the whole history, but I certainly know about the phone pair in the centre that explains what I call "weird wiring order". Yes, it made sense at the time, but nowdays it is a "remora" from the past. Yes, I worked at a place where we connected phones at the same socket as the network cables, which at that moment were 10 mbits. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
From: "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 23:37:39 +0100 On 27/11/2021 23.05, James Knott wrote:
On 2021-11-27 4:36 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
A continuity tester is not enough . . .
Regardless, if you actually need a better tester, get one, but the continuity tester meets my needs, unless the customer wants certification.
A good continuity tester, like the one in the link, certainly finds connection problems. For that price I will get one, they were more expensive when I tried a decade ago. As it happens, I just now stumbled upon the fact that the ethtool command supports the --cable-test and --cable-test-tdr operations. Unfortunately, they are not supported on my 15.3 system: root@orion> ethtool --cable-test eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable testing netlink error: Operation not supported root@orion> ethtool --cable-test-tdr eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable test TDR netlink error: Operation not supported root@orion> And neither the man page nor some quick googling turned up any way to tell what an interface needs in order for this to work. (Mine uses the r8169 driver, FWIW.) Sucn an interface would be better than a separate cable tester, especially if it could be tacked onto a laptop . . . -- Bob Rogers http://www.rgrjr.com/
On 28/11/2021 06.22, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: "Carlos E. R." <>
As it happens, I just now stumbled upon the fact that the ethtool
command supports the --cable-test and --cable-test-tdr operations. Unfortunately, they are not supported on my 15.3 system:
root@orion> ethtool --cable-test eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable testing netlink error: Operation not supported root@orion> ethtool --cable-test-tdr eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable test TDR netlink error: Operation not supported root@orion>
Same thing here. Erebor3:~ # ethtool --cable-test eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable testing netlink error: Operation not supported Erebor3:~ # ethtool --cable-test-tdr eth0 netlink error: PHY driver does not support cable test TDR netlink error: Operation not supported Erebor3:~ # On 15.2, another machine, different error: Telcontar:~ # ethtool --cable-test eth0 ethtool: bad command line argument(s) For more information run ethtool -h Telcontar:~ # ethtool --cable-test-tdr eth0 ethtool: bad command line argument(s) For more information run ethtool -h Telcontar:~ # Telcontar:~ # ethtool -h ethtool version 5.3 Usage: ethtool DEVNAME Display standard information about device ethtool -s|--change DEVNAME Change generic options [ speed %d ] [ duplex half|full ] [ port tp|aui|bnc|mii|fibre ] [ mdix auto|on|off ] [ autoneg on|off ] [ advertise %x ] [ phyad %d ] [ xcvr internal|external ] [ wol p|u|m|b|a|g|s|f|d... ] [ sopass %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x ] [ msglvl %d | msglvl type on|off ... ] ethtool -a|--show-pause DEVNAME Show pause options ethtool -A|--pause DEVNAME Set pause options [ autoneg on|off ] [ rx on|off ] [ tx on|off ] ethtool -c|--show-coalesce DEVNAME Show coalesce options ethtool -C|--coalesce DEVNAME Set coalesce options [adaptive-rx on|off] [adaptive-tx on|off] [rx-usecs N] [rx-frames N] [rx-usecs-irq N] [rx-frames-irq N] [tx-usecs N] [tx-frames N] [tx-usecs-irq N] [tx-frames-irq N] [stats-block-usecs N] [pkt-rate-low N] [rx-usecs-low N] [rx-frames-low N] [tx-usecs-low N] [tx-frames-low N] [pkt-rate-high N] [rx-usecs-high N] [rx-frames-high N] [tx-usecs-high N] [tx-frames-high N] [sample-interval N] ethtool -g|--show-ring DEVNAME Query RX/TX ring parameters ethtool -G|--set-ring DEVNAME Set RX/TX ring parameters [ rx N ] [ rx-mini N ] [ rx-jumbo N ] [ tx N ] ethtool -k|--show-features|--show-offload DEVNAME Get state of protocol offload and other features ethtool -K|--features|--offload DEVNAME Set protocol offload and other features FEATURE on|off ... ethtool -i|--driver DEVNAME Show driver information ethtool -d|--register-dump DEVNAME Do a register dump [ raw on|off ] [ file FILENAME ] ethtool -e|--eeprom-dump DEVNAME Do a EEPROM dump [ raw on|off ] [ offset N ] [ length N ] ethtool -E|--change-eeprom DEVNAME Change bytes in device EEPROM [ magic N ] [ offset N ] [ length N ] [ value N ] ethtool -r|--negotiate DEVNAME Restart N-WAY negotiation ethtool -p|--identify DEVNAME Show visible port identification (e.g. blinking) [ TIME-IN-SECONDS ] ethtool -t|--test DEVNAME Execute adapter self test [ online | offline | external_lb ] ethtool -S|--statistics DEVNAME Show adapter statistics ethtool --phy-statistics DEVNAME Show phy statistics ethtool -n|-u|--show-nfc|--show-ntuple DEVNAME Show Rx network flow classification options or rules [ rx-flow-hash tcp4|udp4|ah4|esp4|sctp4|tcp6|udp6|ah6|esp6|sctp6 [context %d] | rule %d ] ethtool -N|-U|--config-nfc|--config-ntuple DEVNAME Configure Rx network flow classification options or rules rx-flow-hash tcp4|udp4|ah4|esp4|sctp4|tcp6|udp6|ah6|esp6|sctp6 m|v|t|s|d|f|n|r... [context %d] | flow-type ether|ip4|tcp4|udp4|sctp4|ah4|esp4|ip6|tcp6|udp6|ah6|esp6|sctp6 [ src %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x [m %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x] ] [ dst %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x [m %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x] ] [ proto %d [m %x] ] [ src-ip IP-ADDRESS [m IP-ADDRESS] ] [ dst-ip IP-ADDRESS [m IP-ADDRESS] ] [ tos %d [m %x] ] [ tclass %d [m %x] ] [ l4proto %d [m %x] ] [ src-port %d [m %x] ] [ dst-port %d [m %x] ] [ spi %d [m %x] ] [ vlan-etype %x [m %x] ] [ vlan %x [m %x] ] [ user-def %x [m %x] ] [ dst-mac %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x [m %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x] ] [ action %d ] | [ vf %d queue %d ] [ context %d ] [ loc %d]] | delete %d ethtool -T|--show-time-stamping DEVNAME Show time stamping capabilities ethtool -x|--show-rxfh-indir|--show-rxfh DEVNAME Show Rx flow hash indirection table and/or RSS hash key [ context %d ] ethtool -X|--set-rxfh-indir|--rxfh DEVNAME Set Rx flow hash indirection table and/or RSS hash key [ context %d|new ] [ equal N | weight W0 W1 ... | default ] [ hkey %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:.... ] [ hfunc FUNC ] [ delete ] ethtool -f|--flash DEVNAME Flash firmware image from the specified file to a region on the device FILENAME [ REGION-NUMBER-TO-FLASH ] ethtool -P|--show-permaddr DEVNAME Show permanent hardware address ethtool -w|--get-dump DEVNAME Get dump flag, data [ data FILENAME ] ethtool -W|--set-dump DEVNAME Set dump flag of the device N ethtool -l|--show-channels DEVNAME Query Channels ethtool -L|--set-channels DEVNAME Set Channels [ rx N ] [ tx N ] [ other N ] [ combined N ] ethtool --show-priv-flags DEVNAME Query private flags ethtool --set-priv-flags DEVNAME Set private flags FLAG on|off ... ethtool -m|--dump-module-eeprom|--module-info DEVNAME Query/Decode Module EEPROM information and optical diagnostics if available [ raw on|off ] [ hex on|off ] [ offset N ] [ length N ] ethtool --show-eee DEVNAME Show EEE settings ethtool --set-eee DEVNAME Set EEE settings [ eee on|off ] [ advertise %x ] [ tx-lpi on|off ] [ tx-timer %d ] ethtool --set-phy-tunable DEVNAME Set PHY tunable [ downshift on|off [count N] ] [ fast-link-down on|off [msecs N] ] ethtool --get-phy-tunable DEVNAME Get PHY tunable [ downshift ] [ fast-link-down ] ethtool --reset DEVNAME Reset components [ flags %x ] [ mgmt ] [ mgmt-shared ] [ irq ] [ irq-shared ] [ dma ] [ dma-shared ] [ filter ] [ filter-shared ] [ offload ] [ offload-shared ] [ mac ] [ mac-shared ] [ phy ] [ phy-shared ] [ ram ] [ ram-shared ] [ ap ] [ ap-shared ] [ dedicated ] [ all ] ethtool --show-fec DEVNAME Show FEC settings ethtool --set-fec DEVNAME Set FEC settings [ encoding auto|off|rs|baser [...]] ethtool -Q|--per-queue DEVNAME Apply per-queue command.The supported sub commands include --show-coalesce, --coalesce [queue_mask %x] SUB_COMMAND ethtool -h|--help Show this help ethtool --version Show version number Telcontar:~ #
And neither the man page nor some quick googling turned up any way to tell what an interface needs in order for this to work. (Mine uses the r8169 driver, FWIW.) Sucn an interface would be better than a separate cable tester, especially if it could be tacked onto a laptop . . .
-- Bob Rogers http://www.rgrjr.com/
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 27/11/2021 21.35, James Knott wrote:
On 2021-11-27 2:24 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
Check the plugs - GigE requires 4 TPs, 100Mbit only requires two TPs. Regardless, the interface should have worked fine, just slower.
Cable itself is CAT5. All wires are connected properly, I wired them myself, and the cable has been working some years. Suddenly it doesn't work. Change of criteria, instead of lowering the speed, perhaps?
That cable has likely failed, forcing a drop to 100 Mb. With patch cords so cheap, I can't be bothered to make them.
They were not that cheap here when I made them. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)
participants (6)
-
Bob Rogers -
Carlos E. R. -
Dave Howorth -
James Knott -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen