1 2 3 4 Previous Next 49 Replies Latest reply on Jul 6, 2012 3:50 PM by Henri

    x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.

    motodave785

      Hi all,

       

      I have 2 servers Windows 2008 R2 x64 that I have just installed X520-DA2 cards. The moment I attach the cable the network adapter disappears from the network connections screen and in the device manager it displays a message that 'Windows has stopped this device because it has reported problems.'

       

      The System event log records an error "The driver was unable to load due to an unsupported SFP+ module installed in the adapter." which seems to indicate that I am using an incompatable cable. However I have reviewed the information at http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm and it indicates that :

       

      Which direct attach cables are compatible with the Intel Ethernet Server Adapter X520 Series?
      The Intel Ethernet Server Adapter X520 Series and Intel® 82599 10 Gigabit Ethernet Controller-based connections support any SFP+ passive or active limiting direct attach copper cable that complies with the SFF-8431 v4.1 and SFF-8472 v10.4 specifications.

       

      The cable I am using is a Tripp-Lite N280-05M which they list on their website as being SFF-8431 http://www.tripplite.com/en/products/model.cfm?txtModelID=4904

       

      I have found several other posts here that appear to be similar or identical; however, the posters never posted their solution or perhaps they simply gave up.

       

      The other posts are here:

      http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/search.html?keyword=The+driver+was+unable+to+load+due+to+an+unsupported+SFP%2B+module+installed+in+the+adapter.

       

      I hope I am not alone on this one! TIA for any help.

       

      Dave

        • 1. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
          sropes3

          I thought this was my post it is so close to what happened - the difference is the date 10/11/11.

          Please help us.

          • 2. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
            motodave785

            sropes3,

             

            What adapters and what cables are you using? I am considering just ordering some different cables but at $100 a pop I am reluctant to just start buying more parts, especially considering the parts that I am using should meet the spec according to the manufacturer and the other posters experience of the same cards and cables working together with a different OS...

             

            Dave

            • 3. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
              sropes3

              2 DEll R900's with fresh installas of 2008r2 with SP1 and all the updates.

              2 (1 ea) intel X520-DA2 adapters, which after installation and before cable attachment appeared properly.

              2 Tripp Lite N280-5M 5 meter SFP+ to SFP+ High Speed Passive Copper 10Gig Cable

              Prior to purchase, I verified HCL for the adpater, which staes it works with any cable meeting SFF-8431 v4.1 and SFF-8472 v10.4 specifications.

              The cable states that it is MSA SFF-8431 Compliant so everything should work.
              The adapter has drivers specific to the operating system used - Server 2008 R2 ( all editions).

              There should be no problems....

               

              but thats why we're here instead of working on our networks/servers.

              • 4. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                bj_orion

                Before the purchase, have to check with the seller that cable is compatible with Intel 10G NIC. I believe it's the different copper cable.  If it's not, the Windows Device Manager gives the NIC icon a yellow triangle with question mark. I bought a new one and it works with Intel X520-DA2 and other 10G NIC cards as well (Emulex, Myricom).  So two things, 1) it's different cable from what you have  2) ask the seller for an Intel 10G compatible cable.  Hope this helps.

                • 5. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                  aslloyd

                  Hi motodave785 and others, thanks for using Intel® Ethernet products.

                   

                  This issue and others like it are interesting to our support team, and we'd like to let you know we are investigating.  It's likely we'll need to contact one or more of the posters in this thread via the forum private messages to do some follow-up debugging, and we'll make sure to update the thread with any progress we've made.

                   

                  The general issue of cable support can be touchy, even when all of the related specifications seem to match.  Any aberrations in the detection of the SFP+ module, be it on the part of the NIC or the cable, ends adbuptly without providing much in the way of failure detail.  Our first step will be to get these cables into our lab and see exactly what is going on when they get plugged in.

                   

                  To be continued...

                   

                  South @ Intel

                  • 6. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                    motodave785

                    I will be sending one of my cables to South @ Intel for them to test in their lab and will post back with results. In the meantime, I am going to try a different manufacturer of Passive Cu cable.

                    • 7. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                      aslloyd

                      A little update on this one, but first a big thanks to motodave for so graciously lending us some cables!

                       

                      We have reproduced the failure here, that part was easy.  Our next step was to take a look at the cable EEPROM to see what was stored in it.  The EEPROM in these cables has information that identifies the cable, and our adapter will take a look there to determine what kind of cable is being plugged in (and whether or not it's supported.)

                       

                      Well, our first attempts to read these particular cables weren't pretty; half the time we don't see an EEPROM at all, and the other half of the time we read a bunch of junk.  Ugly as it is though, that's progress.

                       

                      Our effort now is focused on figuring out why we're not reading legitimate values.  We don't have enough information yet to say for sure what the problem is (and I don't want to jinx the folks working on this by guessing when we will) so I'll just say we're on it and when we know more than so will you!

                      • 8. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                        motodave785

                        Thanks for the update South. I will be curious to hear of the progress.

                         

                        After sending you my cables that I was having problems with, I ordered some Cisco cables (SFP-H10GB-CU3M) and they have been working perfectly.

                        • 9. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                          clarkimusprime

                          I am running into the same issue with minor differences in setup.  The cards themselves are x520-DA NICs; the cables are HP x240 10G SFP+ (P/N JD097B); the OS is VMware ESXi 5.0.  When the machine and OS come up with no cables plugged in, the OS shows all NICs.  As soon as I plug in one of the cables, an error occurs in the vmkernel.log ("SFP+ module is not supported") and ports disappear.  I am working to replace the NICs with x520-DA2 cards since according to VMware, the x520-DA will not work correctly.  However, it looks like the cables themselves may be the issue -- at least if previous posters are any indication.  I read the same statement as an earlier poster (paraphrased => if the DA cable complies with spec, it's legit) and figured I should be OK.  Have there been any updates on known good cables?  It sounded like the Cisco cables were known good. I'm just hesitant to start purchasing loads of expensive cables if it isn't clear which brands are supported fully.

                          • 10. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                            motodave785

                            clarkimusprime,

                             

                            If you look at my last reply, you will see that I was in exactly that same state of mind. I purchased some new cables and presto it worked as expected. I included the part # of the cable that I ordered and they were also 3m cables.

                             

                            Your cables are either faulty or not actually compatible even though the spec says that they do.

                             

                            Get some new cables and move on.

                             

                            Dave

                            • 11. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                              mark_h_@intel

                              I doubt that you need new adapters. The adapters have a product code that ends in DA, like E10G42BTDA. However, these are the same adapters that are named DA2 in the brand name string as in Intel® Ethernet Server Adapter X520-DA2. There is not an older DA model in the X520 series that was replaced by a DA2 model. Motodave785 is on the right track here. The problem is most likely with cable incompatibility.

                               

                              Mark H

                              • 12. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                                Henri

                                Hi,

                                 

                                have a simiular problem.

                                 

                                HP E3500yl SPF+        <----2x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2x------> Intel x520-da2 - Exomium S200 SAN box

                                9287BModul / ProCurve / HP X242 SFP+ to SFP+ 15m Direct

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Intel 82598EB 10-Gigabit AT CX4 -  Exomium S200                                                                                                                                                                                               !

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2x

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !

                                                       CX4          <----2x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2x------> 2 vSphere 5 boxes

                                 

                                 

                                On the right site is also a Intel Corporation 82598EB 10-Gigabit AT CX4 card installed, which works fine since a couple of month.

                                The links comes up and works for a couple of hours. After a while the link becomes disconnected, the switch shows the link a "Down".

                                The right site a OPEN-E (Linux) based NAS/SAN box. Firmware of the switch is up to date.

                                I get a lot RX errors, no TX error. Driver version: 3.3.9-NAPI.

                                Since 2 days I get also the stack trace below (ixgbe_alloc_rx_buffers) which would explain the RX errors. I opened a ticket at the vendor of the box,

                                but may your can point me in the right direction to fix the problem.

                                 

                                Thanks a lot in advance

                                Henri

                                 

                                 

                                eth4 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1B:21:D4:63:D0
                                inet addr:172.20.10.20 Bcast:172.20.10.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
                                UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
                                RX packets:85853641 errors:106711 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:106711
                                TX packets:101422994 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                                collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
                                RX bytes:1002864522968 (933.9 GiB) TX bytes:245777016422 (228.8 GiB)

                                 

                                eth5 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1B:21:D4:63:D1
                                inet addr:172.20.0.20 Bcast:172.20.1.255 Mask:255.255.254.0
                                UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
                                RX packets:4179747 errors:649940 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:649940
                                TX packets:4662351 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                                collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
                                RX bytes:2049773029 (1.9 GiB) TX bytes:3112619034 (2.8 GiB)

                                 

                                modinfo ixgbe

                                *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
                                filename:
                                /lib/modules/2.6.27.39-oe64-00000-g5ec1914/kernel/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe.ko
                                author: Intel Corporation, <linux.nics@intel.com <mailto:linux.nics@intel.com>>
                                description: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver
                                license: GPL
                                version: 3.3.9-NAPI
                                vermagic: 2.6.27.39-oe64-00000-g5ec1914 SMP mod_unload

                                 

                                 

                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068214] Pid: 18059, comm: rrd_pysnmp_grap Not tainted 2.6.27.39-oe64-00000-g5ec1914 #49
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068217]
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068217] Call Trace:
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068219]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff80274afd>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x3fd/0x450
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068227]  [<ffffffff80292703>] cache_alloc_refill+0x2c3/0x5e0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068230]  [<ffffffff80292b1c>] __kmalloc+0xfc/0x110
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068233]  [<ffffffff805de5fa>] __alloc_skb+0x6a/0x150
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068248]  [<ffffffffa010e2ef>] ixgbe_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ef/0x3b0 [ixgbe]
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068258]  [<ffffffffa0111212>] ixgbe_poll+0xbf2/0x1340 [ixgbe]
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068268]  [<ffffffffa00dc5db>] e1000_poll+0x51b/0x5b0 [e1000e]
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068271]  [<ffffffff805e658b>] net_rx_action+0x13b/0x200
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068274]  [<ffffffff8023a2d3>] __do_softirq+0x73/0xf0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068277]  [<ffffffff8020d41c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068280]  [<ffffffff8020ec35>] do_softirq+0x35/0x70
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068282]  [<ffffffff8023a259>] irq_exit+0x89/0x90
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068284]  [<ffffffff8020ed20>] do_IRQ+0x80/0xf0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068286]  [<ffffffff8020c771>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068288]  <EOI>
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068291] DMA per-cpu:
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068292] CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068297] CPU    1: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068297] CPU    2: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068297] CPU    3: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068298] CPU    4: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068299] CPU    5: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068301] CPU    6: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068302] CPU    7: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068303] DMA32 per-cpu:
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068305] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  47
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068306] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 140
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068308] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  85
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068309] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 156
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068311] CPU    4: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 100
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068312] CPU    5: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 162
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068313] CPU    6: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 145
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068315] CPU    7: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  15
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068316] Normal per-cpu:
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068317] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 146
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068319] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 169
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068320] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  39
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068321] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 170
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068323] CPU    4: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 117
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068324] CPU    5: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  77
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068329] CPU    6: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 129
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068330] CPU    7: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 183
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068330] Active:73255 inactive:1773495 dirty:234 writeback:0 unstable:0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068331]  free:11655 slab:104876 mapped:9666 pagetables:884 bounce:0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068334] DMA free:8300kB min:8kB low:8kB high:12kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:7240kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? yes
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068336] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 2991 8041 8041
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068340] DMA32 free:29532kB min:4264kB low:5328kB high:6396kB active:75344kB inactive:2631552kB present:3063584kB pages_scanned:34 all_unreclaimable? no
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068342] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 5050 5050
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068346] Normal free:8788kB min:7200kB low:9000kB high:10800kB active:217676kB inactive:4462428kB present:5171200kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068348] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068350] DMA: 3*4kB 2*8kB 3*16kB 5*32kB 4*64kB 5*128kB 2*256kB 1*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 1*4096kB = 8300kB
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068357] DMA32: 6074*4kB 624*8kB 11*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 29496kB
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068363] Normal: 1943*4kB 47*8kB 15*16kB 9*32kB 4*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8932kB
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068369] 1824959 total pagecache pages
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068370] 0 pages in swap cache
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068372] Swap cache stats: add 4333, delete 4333, find 426/527
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068373] Free swap  = 8375140kB
                                2011/12/04 00:20:04|[379834.068374] Total swap = 8388592kB
                                • 13. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                                  Henri

                                  Hi,

                                   

                                  the picture is a bit urgly, therefor:

                                   

                                  the s200 box is direct attched to the vSphere boxes with CX4s. The vSphere boxes are attached to the switch with CX4s.

                                  Now we upgrade the s200 with a X500 card and this card is attached to the switch with 2x SFP+.

                                   

                                  Henri

                                  • 14. Re: x520-da2 not working with SFP+ twinax cable.
                                    mark_h_@intel

                                    Hi Henri,

                                    The disconnection might be cable related. The maximum cable length for passive cables for the Intel adapters is 7 meters. (See http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm.)

                                     

                                    Mark H

                                    1 2 3 4 Previous Next