hi,
as far as i was aware you CAN`T team to different speed network cards.... we use the intel/Compaq/HP (the same cards/drivers) and i have not been able to get the teaming to work with 100/1000 . if you put 2 1g`s togther ...no problem....2 100`s ...again no problem ....but different speed`s NOPE.. HTH steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elijah Savage III" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:31 PM Subject: RE: Very poor performance on Cat 6000 gigabit? [7:57695] > If you get this to work keep me/us informed as I am sure you will. > Because I could never get this to work, I actually had to buy another > 1gig nic and still the drivers did not work correctly actually eneded up > just using fast etherchannel which is working great. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Very poor performance on Cat 6000 gigabit? [7:57695] > > > Here's something annoying that I came across yesterday... any clues as > to what's going wrong would be very much appreciated. > > Scenario: > > HP NetServers with built-in 100M NICs, based on an Intel chipset. > > With the HP drivers, the performance is fine - as you'd expect from a > 100M connection. With Intel drivers, nothing changes. Still fine. > > Add a 1G NIC, again HP badged but with an Intel chipset (Intel > Pro/1000TX), and bind them together into a fault-tolerant set using the > Intel drivers that were priovided by HP (they don't provide HP badged > drivers for this card, though they are happy to sell it with an HP > sticker on it for twice the cost of the "Intel" card). My intention of > course is that the 1G adapter is the primary (and set so in the "teamed > adapter" settings) and the 100M would only be used as a fallback if the > 1G fails. > > That's where things go wrong. > > With both cards connected to the same switch (long-term intention of > course is that the 100M card will connect to a standby switch) it > insists on using the 100M card, even when the 1G is set as the > "preferred primary" and the 100M is the "preferred secondary". Both > cards definitely work... if I unplug the connection to the 100M, the 1G > takes over. With only the 100M connected, it works. > > Now, here's the very odd bit. You'd expect better performance from the > 1G card. But no. Testing with file copies to or from another server that > has been working fine with a 1G card for a year or so (attached via > fiber to a GBIC on the supervisor card on the switch), I get several > times times better performance with the 100M NIC than I do with the 1G > (both UTP). > > I've tried different cables. All are BICC GigaPlus. The 100M connection > goes through a patch panel, but I've run a 20M flylead direct from the > server to the switch for the 1G connection. > > The switch is a Cisco Catalyst 6000 with the 100M connections going to > 48-port 100M cards, and the 1G connections going to a 16-port 1G card. > Software, firmware, etc versions pasted below. > > Seeing much worse performance from Gigabit adapters compared to 100M is > something of a disappointment, to say the least. > > Any ideas? > > The hardware and versions: > > WS-C6006 Software, Version NmpSW: 7.2(2) > Copyright (c) 1995-2002 by Cisco Systems > NMP S/W compiled on Jun 3 2002, 18:30:10 > > System Bootstrap Version: 5.3(1) > System Web Interface Version: Engine Version: 5.3.4 ADP Device: Cat6000 > ADP Ver0 > > Hardware Version: 1.0 Model: WS-C6006 Serial #: XXXXXXXXXXX > > PS1 Module: WS-CAC-1300W Serial #: XXXXXXXXXXX > PS2 Module: WS-CAC-1300W Serial #: XXXXXXXXXXX > > Mod Port Model Serial # Versions > --- ---- ------------------- ----------- > -------------------------------------- > 1 2 WS-X6K-SUP1A-2GE XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 3.1 > Fw : 5.3(1) > Fw1: 5.1(1)CSX > Sw : 7.2(2) > Sw1: 7.2(2) > WS-F6K-PFC XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 1.0 > 3 8 WS-X6408-GBIC XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 2.1 > Fw : 4.2(0.24)VAI78 > Sw : 7.2(2) > 4 48 WS-X6248-RJ-45 XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 1.1 > Fw : 4.2(0.24)VAI78 > Sw : 7.2(2) > 5 48 WS-X6248-RJ-45 XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 1.4 > Fw : 5.4(2) > Sw : 7.2(2) > 6 16 WS-X6316-GE-TX XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 1.3 > Fw : 5.4(2) > Sw : 7.2(2) > 15 1 WS-F6K-MSFC XXXXXXXXXXX Hw : 1.3 > Fw : 12.0(7)XE1, > Sw : 12.0(7)XE1, > > [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which > had a name of winmail.dat] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57849&t=57695 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
