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 #: XXX
PS1 Module: WS-CAC-1300WSerial #: XXX
PS2 Module: WS-CAC-1300WSerial #: XXX
Mod Port Model Serial #Versions
--- --- ---
--
1 2WS-X6K-SUP1A-2GEXXX Hw : 3.1
Fw : 5.3(1)
Fw1: 5.1(1)CSX
Sw : 7.2(2)
Sw1: 7.2(2)
WS-F6K-PFC XXX Hw : 1.0
3 8WS-X6408-GBIC XXX Hw : 2.1
Fw : 4.2(0.24)VAI78
Sw : 7.2(2)
4 48 WS-X6248-RJ-45 XXX Hw : 1.1
Fw : 4.2(0.24)VAI78
Sw : 7.2(2)
5 48 WS-X6248-RJ-45 XXX Hw : 1.4
Fw : 5.4(2)
Sw : 7.2(2)
6 16 WS-X6316-GE-TX XXX Hw : 1.3
Fw : 5.4(2)
Sw : 7.2(2)
15 1WS-F6K-MSFC XXX 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=57695&t=57695
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
