Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Brian wrote: |+yeah i had a case recently with a pair of bsd servers where if the switch |+they were connected was forced to 100/full, the server stayed at half. |+But if the switch set to auto, then 100/full was the result. I was aghast |+in horror, but it did happen. Exactly the case here. Opposite of what I normally would do but it works. Have not seen an error on that link since I auto'd the switch side. The BSD/OS machine I have set for auto already. Weird... |+Brian Sonic Whalen |+Success = Preparation + Opportunity Keith Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=5080t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
yeah i had a case recently with a pair of bsd servers where if the switch they were connected was forced to 100/full, the server stayed at half. But if the switch set to auto, then 100/full was the result. I was aghast in horror, but it did happen. Brian Sonic Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: Thanks for the info. That's a new one. Configuring auto negotiation actually fixed the problem! ;-) Priscilla At 04:51 PM 5/16/01, Keith Woodworth wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: |+On the bright side, your reliability is still 255/255, which makes sense |+since only 597 out of 530182 frames have an input error. The ratio of bad |+frames to good frames is 0.001, which is OK. One way to look at it. :) |+Is it copper cabling? Could there be electrical noise causing the errors? |+Is this server in a different location than the others? Did swapping the |+NIC reduce the rate? Perhaps the NIC outputs bad frames every so often. |+Please let us know what you find out. It will help us learn, though I think |+the bottom line answer is that you shouldn't worry about this low level |+of errors. Yes standard TP. Server is located same rack as the others. One fellow from this group if I may mention him, as the last message was CC'd to the list: Brad McConnell mentioned he had some Linux machines with Intel EtherExpress cards connected to a 6509 switch. When he hard set the port on the card and the switch he saw errors as well. Soon as he Auto'd both the switch and the card in the computer all was well. As these are the same card but running under BSD/OS, I set a port to Auto on the switch, made sure the card was set to auto and moved the computer to that port, took about 15 secs but they autoed to 100/full. That was about a half hour ago and so far no errors: 5 minute input rate 127000 bits/sec, 42 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 107000 bits/sec, 40 packets/sec 103937 packets input, 42817903 bytes Received 1 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 99082 packets output, 39561280 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Generally I would start seeing input errors within the first couple of megs of data. Looks like there might be issues with the driver for this card under BSD/OS and having the switch side pegged to 100/full and the card set to auto. Leave it be for now and see how it goes. Thanks for the reply. Keith Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4875t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
Well, it did happen on 2600 series router and my CAt 5500 switch. Auto sensing will give both interfaces 100Mbps, but when I force the port on my switch to 100Mbps/full duplex, the router interface in auto sensing mode stay at half ;P, I need to force it to 100Mbps as well. ** Don't ask me why since it's already autosensing 100Mbps ;P ** - Original Message - From: Brian To: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Errors on link. [7:4646] yeah i had a case recently with a pair of bsd servers where if the switch they were connected was forced to 100/full, the server stayed at half. But if the switch set to auto, then 100/full was the result. I was aghast in horror, but it did happen. Brian Sonic Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: Thanks for the info. That's a new one. Configuring auto negotiation actually fixed the problem! ;-) Priscilla At 04:51 PM 5/16/01, Keith Woodworth wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: |+On the bright side, your reliability is still 255/255, which makes sense |+since only 597 out of 530182 frames have an input error. The ratio of bad |+frames to good frames is 0.001, which is OK. One way to look at it. :) |+Is it copper cabling? Could there be electrical noise causing the errors? |+Is this server in a different location than the others? Did swapping the |+NIC reduce the rate? Perhaps the NIC outputs bad frames every so often. |+Please let us know what you find out. It will help us learn, though I think |+the bottom line answer is that you shouldn't worry about this low level |+of errors. Yes standard TP. Server is located same rack as the others. One fellow from this group if I may mention him, as the last message was CC'd to the list: Brad McConnell mentioned he had some Linux machines with Intel EtherExpress cards connected to a 6509 switch. When he hard set the port on the card and the switch he saw errors as well. Soon as he Auto'd both the switch and the card in the computer all was well. As these are the same card but running under BSD/OS, I set a port to Auto on the switch, made sure the card was set to auto and moved the computer to that port, took about 15 secs but they autoed to 100/full. That was about a half hour ago and so far no errors: 5 minute input rate 127000 bits/sec, 42 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 107000 bits/sec, 40 packets/sec 103937 packets input, 42817903 bytes Received 1 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 99082 packets output, 39561280 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Generally I would start seeing input errors within the first couple of megs of data. Looks like there might be issues with the driver for this card under BSD/OS and having the switch side pegged to 100/full and the card set to auto. Leave it be for now and see how it goes. Thanks for the reply. Keith Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4885t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Circusnuts wrote: |+You say the ports are locked to 100/ Full on the 2924 ??? It sounds as if |+you have done the trouble shooting with the cables. Have you isolated which |+box this is coming from then maybe moved to swap the NIC ??? How are you |+reading the CRC errors ??? Yup, pegged the ports manually to 100/full. I know which box this is coming from and as it came with dual nics I will be shutting down the one in use now and will bring up the other one and see if that helps. I do a sho int faste 0/22 and look at what comes up from there. This is a full sho int on that port: FastEthernet0/22 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0004.27c2.2156 (bia 0004.27c2.2156) MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive not set Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of show interface counters 04:46:18 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops 5 minute input rate 91000 bits/sec, 27 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 41000 bits/sec, 24 packets/sec 530182 packets input, 231187726 bytes Received 2 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 597 input errors, 290 CRC, 307 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 416336 packets output, 170466717 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out This is the only port to show any errors of the 6 ports in use. Ive swapped ports, reset counters and still the CRC errors creep up. But next is the NIC on the box and see where that gets me. Thanks, Keith Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4658t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Brad McConnell wrote: |+I can only speak from my own experiences, but I have quite a few Linux boxes |+plugged into a 6509, and if I hard-set both the switch and the NICs (Intell |+EEPRO's, Dell servers) to 100full, I'm guaranteed to get errors, including |+quite a few runts. If I set them both to auto and let them negotiate |+100full on their own, they're completely fat and happy. This box happen to |+run a different OS? Otherwise, I'd target the drivers/module used by the |+NIC, then the NIC itself. It is an Intel EtherExpress Pros acutally running under BSD/OS. Ive set them to Auto but IIRC they only autoed to 10/half to the 2924, so I pegged the speed/duplex on the switch and the card auto'd up correctly. Interestingly enough Ive got two other identical machines but they are plugged into a Cat5500, 100/full and no errors on those ports. Then again they are really low traffic machines. Will fiddle with that tommorrow and see if it works. Thanks for the suggestion. Keith Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4662t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
On the bright side, your reliability is still 255/255, which makes sense since only 597 out of 530182 frames have an input error. The ratio of bad frames to good frames is 0.001, which is OK. The port has received 231,187,726 bytes or 1,849,501,808 bits. We have to assume that each frame has just one bit error, which might not be true, but there's no way to know otherwise. Making that assumption, and the assumption that I can do arithmetic (which is a stretch), your error rate is 597/1,849,501,808 which is about .003, or 3 out of 10^7. According to experts fiber-optic cabling should have a bit error rate of less than 1 in 10^11. Copper cabling should have a bit error rate of less than 1 in 10^6. If you are using copper cabling, then you are within the threshold. Is it copper cabling? Could there be electrical noise causing the errors? Is this server in a different location than the others? Did swapping the NIC reduce the rate? Perhaps the NIC outputs bad frames every so often. Please let us know what you find out. It will help us learn, though I think the bottom line answer is that you shouldn't worry about this low level of errors. Thanks! Priscilla At 02:32 AM 5/16/01, Keith Woodworth wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Circusnuts wrote: |+You say the ports are locked to 100/ Full on the 2924 ??? It sounds as if |+you have done the trouble shooting with the cables. Have you isolated which |+box this is coming from then maybe moved to swap the NIC ??? How are you |+reading the CRC errors ??? Yup, pegged the ports manually to 100/full. I know which box this is coming from and as it came with dual nics I will be shutting down the one in use now and will bring up the other one and see if that helps. I do a sho int faste 0/22 and look at what comes up from there. This is a full sho int on that port: FastEthernet0/22 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0004.27c2.2156 (bia 0004.27c2.2156) MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive not set Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of show interface counters 04:46:18 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops 5 minute input rate 91000 bits/sec, 27 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 41000 bits/sec, 24 packets/sec 530182 packets input, 231187726 bytes Received 2 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 597 input errors, 290 CRC, 307 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 416336 packets output, 170466717 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out This is the only port to show any errors of the 6 ports in use. Ive swapped ports, reset counters and still the CRC errors creep up. But next is the NIC on the box and see where that gets me. Thanks, Keith FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4768t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: |+On the bright side, your reliability is still 255/255, which makes sense |+since only 597 out of 530182 frames have an input error. The ratio of bad |+frames to good frames is 0.001, which is OK. One way to look at it. :) |+Is it copper cabling? Could there be electrical noise causing the errors? |+Is this server in a different location than the others? Did swapping the |+NIC reduce the rate? Perhaps the NIC outputs bad frames every so often. |+Please let us know what you find out. It will help us learn, though I think |+the bottom line answer is that you shouldn't worry about this low level |+of errors. Yes standard TP. Server is located same rack as the others. One fellow from this group if I may mention him, as the last message was CC'd to the list: Brad McConnell mentioned he had some Linux machines with Intel EtherExpress cards connected to a 6509 switch. When he hard set the port on the card and the switch he saw errors as well. Soon as he Auto'd both the switch and the card in the computer all was well. As these are the same card but running under BSD/OS, I set a port to Auto on the switch, made sure the card was set to auto and moved the computer to that port, took about 15 secs but they autoed to 100/full. That was about a half hour ago and so far no errors: 5 minute input rate 127000 bits/sec, 42 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 107000 bits/sec, 40 packets/sec 103937 packets input, 42817903 bytes Received 1 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 99082 packets output, 39561280 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Generally I would start seeing input errors within the first couple of megs of data. Looks like there might be issues with the driver for this card under BSD/OS and having the switch side pegged to 100/full and the card set to auto. Leave it be for now and see how it goes. Thanks for the reply. Keith Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4776t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
Thanks for the info. That's a new one. Configuring auto negotiation actually fixed the problem! ;-) Priscilla At 04:51 PM 5/16/01, Keith Woodworth wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: |+On the bright side, your reliability is still 255/255, which makes sense |+since only 597 out of 530182 frames have an input error. The ratio of bad |+frames to good frames is 0.001, which is OK. One way to look at it. :) |+Is it copper cabling? Could there be electrical noise causing the errors? |+Is this server in a different location than the others? Did swapping the |+NIC reduce the rate? Perhaps the NIC outputs bad frames every so often. |+Please let us know what you find out. It will help us learn, though I think |+the bottom line answer is that you shouldn't worry about this low level |+of errors. Yes standard TP. Server is located same rack as the others. One fellow from this group if I may mention him, as the last message was CC'd to the list: Brad McConnell mentioned he had some Linux machines with Intel EtherExpress cards connected to a 6509 switch. When he hard set the port on the card and the switch he saw errors as well. Soon as he Auto'd both the switch and the card in the computer all was well. As these are the same card but running under BSD/OS, I set a port to Auto on the switch, made sure the card was set to auto and moved the computer to that port, took about 15 secs but they autoed to 100/full. That was about a half hour ago and so far no errors: 5 minute input rate 127000 bits/sec, 42 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 107000 bits/sec, 40 packets/sec 103937 packets input, 42817903 bytes Received 1 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 0 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 99082 packets output, 39561280 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Generally I would start seeing input errors within the first couple of megs of data. Looks like there might be issues with the driver for this card under BSD/OS and having the switch side pegged to 100/full and the card set to auto. Leave it be for now and see how it goes. Thanks for the reply. Keith Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4790t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Errors on link. [7:4646]
You say the ports are locked to 100/ Full on the 2924 ??? It sounds as if you have done the trouble shooting with the cables. Have you isolated which box this is coming from then maybe moved to swap the NIC ??? How are you reading the CRC errors ??? A few ideas Phil - Original Message - From: Keith Woodworth To: Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:06 AM Subject: Errors on link. [7:4646] Have 4 servers plugged into a 2924XL switch. Pegged the links to 100/full and of all the links our mail server always shows errors: 343 input errors, 169 CRC, 174 frame None of the other server links on the switch show any errors of any kind. Ive swapped cable and ports on the switch and still get errors. This is traffic on the line, fairly low: 5 minute input rate 114000 bits/sec, 38 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 111000 bits/sec, 36 packets/sec Next would be to look at the server and swap ethernet ports (it has 2) maybe Ive got a bad ethernet intface on the server? I think as this is CRC errors its physical layer and/or layer 2 issues that I'm seeing here. Anywhere else to look? Keith FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=4652t=4646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
