Hi,
I have an interesting situation with one of our switches. It's a
D-Link DGS-3100, 24 port 10/100/1000 Layer 2 Managed switch with some
CentOS servers connected to it. On many of the servers I need to
disable Flow Control on the switch's ports otherwise the CentOS
server's doesn't connect to th
On 07/07/2011 07:46 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an interesting situation with one of our switches. It's a
> D-Link DGS-3100, 24 port 10/100/1000 Layer 2 Managed switch with some
> CentOS servers connected to it. On many of the servers I need to
> disable Flow Control on the switch's por
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 07:46 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an interesting situation with one of our switches. It's a
>> D-Link DGS-3100, 24 port 10/100/1000 Layer 2 Managed switch with some
>> CentOS servers connected to it. On many of the serve
rudi
when migrating some rackmount HP servers running Centos4 from hard coded 100
meg fdx to auto gigE that we had to
1) remove this from our ifcfg-ethX files
ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed 100 duplex full autoneg off"
2) proper CAT6 wiring
3) plug into the copper gigE switchport
4) reboot
using Cisco
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, R - elists wrote:
> rudi
>
> when migrating some rackmount HP servers running Centos4 from hard coded 100
> meg fdx to auto gigE that we had to
>
> 1) remove this from our ifcfg-ethX files
>
> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed 100 duplex full autoneg off"
I don't see those optio
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, R - elists wrote:
>> rudi
>>
>> when migrating some rackmount HP servers running Centos4 from hard coded 100
>> meg fdx to auto gigE that we had to
>>
>> 1) remove this from our ifcfg-ethX files
>>
>> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed 100 duplex full autoneg
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, R - elists wrote:
>>> rudi
>>>
>>> when migrating some rackmount HP servers running Centos4 from hard coded 100
>>> meg fdx to auto gigE that we had to
>>>
>>> 1) remove this from o
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, R - elists wrote:
>> rudi
>>
>> when migrating some rackmount HP servers running Centos4 from hard coded
>> 100
>> meg fdx to auto gigE that we had to
>>
>> 1) remove this from our ifcfg-ethX files
>>
>> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed 100 duplex full auton
> A minor detail - I think you *must* have autoneg set first -
> it applies them one after the other, in my experience.
>
> ETHTOOL_OPTS="autoneg off speed 100 duplex full"
>
> mark
>
in this case though, it is gigE so dont use 100
it was used cause cisco typically should be hard se
On 7/7/11, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Yes, I figured that much, but I don't know what to look for.
>
> Some of the servers are Intel and other are SuperMicro, all using
> onboard NIC's. The Dell Windows servers connected to the same switch
> doesn't have this issue though
I had a similar experience but
R - elists wrote:
>
>> A minor detail - I think you *must* have autoneg set first -
>> it applies them one after the other, in my experience.
>>
>> ETHTOOL_OPTS="autoneg off speed 100 duplex full"
>
> in this case though, it is gigE so dont use 100
Right, but the point I was making is that when I
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 7/7/11, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>> Yes, I figured that much, but I don't know what to look for.
>>
>> Some of the servers are Intel and other are SuperMicro, all using
>> onboard NIC's. The Dell Windows servers connected to the same switch
>> doesn't have this issue thoug
On 7/7/2011 9:24 AM, R - elists wrote:
>
>> A minor detail - I think you *must* have autoneg set first -
>> it applies them one after the other, in my experience.
>>
>> ETHTOOL_OPTS="autoneg off speed 100 duplex full"
>>
>> mark
>>
>
> in this case though, it is gigE so dont use 100
>
> i
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 9:24 AM, R - elists wrote:
>>
>>> A minor detail - I think you *must* have autoneg set first -
>>> it applies them one after the other, in my experience.
>>>
>>> ETHTOOL_OPTS="autoneg off speed 100 duplex full"
>>
>> in this case though, it is gigE so dont use 100
On 7/7/2011 10:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>>>
A minor detail - I think you *must* have autoneg set first -
it applies them one after the other, in my experience.
ETHTOOL_OPTS="autoneg off speed 100 duplex full"
>>>
>>> in this case though, it is gigE so dont use 100
>>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:37 AM
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] how to enable Flow Control on CentOS?
>
> On 7/7/2011 9
On 07/07/2011 17:30, Les Mikesell wrote:
Old Cisco switches - and Cisco's advice about how to work around their
problems - are just the main reason that anyone would ever have turned
off auto-negotiate. And it is a big problem if you only turn if off at
one end which is what you end up with as
On 7/8/2011 5:50 PM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 17:30, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Old Cisco switches - and Cisco's advice about how to work around their
>> problems - are just the main reason that anyone would ever have turned
>> off auto-negotiate. And it is a big problem if you only turn if
On 09/07/2011 01:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
Turning off negotiation pretty much guarantees problems if anything
changes at the other end or you use an unmanaged switch. And the
gigabit spec requires auto-negotiation.
Let me make it clear - auto-negotiation only works if auto-negotiation
is conf
Giles Coochey wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 01:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >Turning off negotiation pretty much guarantees problems if
> >anything changes at the other end or you use an unmanaged switch.
> >And the gigabit spec requires auto-negotiation.
>
> Let me make it clear - auto-negotiation only wor
On 10/07/2011 10:22, Charles Polisher wrote:
Gigabit is different.
My reading of the spec is that when a port is configured for 1GbE
over 1000BASE-T (copper), "disabling" auto-negotiation disables the
advertising of the auto-negotiation for 10BASE-T and 100BASE-T, but
auto-negotiation is still ad
On 07/10/11 1:46 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> Fiber is not a CSMA/CD medium, it's a Point to Point medium - Duplex
> is meaningless.
so is twisted pair.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
On 10/07/2011 12:57, John R Pierce wrote:
On 07/10/11 1:46 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
Fiber is not a CSMA/CD medium, it's a Point to Point medium - Duplex
is meaningless.
so is twisted pair.
ha... ha... of course, interesting.
I guess what I was trying to say is that for fiber connections du
On 7/9/11 12:18 PM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 01:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Turning off negotiation pretty much guarantees problems if anything changes
>> at
>> the other end or you use an unmanaged switch. And the gigabit spec requires
>> auto-negotiation.
>
> Let me make it clear - au
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 22:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/9/11 12:18 PM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> > Gigabit is different.
>
> No, the default of auto-negotiating works there too.
>
In 1000BASE-T, autonegotiation is required, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE
On Sunday, July 10, 2011 07:05:16 AM Giles Coochey wrote:
> I guess what I was trying to say is that for fiber connections duplex
> has no meaning, was there ever a fiber 'hub' where multiple point to
> point connections 'shared' a medium? (in a virtual sense)
You can make/get passive fiber hubs
On 07/11/11 10:17 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 07:05:16 AM Giles Coochey wrote:
>> I guess what I was trying to say is that for fiber connections duplex
>> has no meaning, was there ever a fiber 'hub' where multiple point to
>> point connections 'shared' a medium? (in a virtual
On Monday, July 11, 2011 01:47:09 PM John R Pierce wrote:
> it was my understanding that 'hubs' were only supported on 10baseT and
> 100baseT ethernets,
> GigE mandates switching and full
> duplex. Anyone using fiber for 10 or 100baseF is stuck in the last
> century.
Or stuck with >550
On Friday, July 08, 2011 07:06:06 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
>And the
> gigabit spec requires auto-negotiation.
According to clause 37.1.4.4 "User Configuration with Auto-Negotiation" of IEEE
802.3-2008, auto-negotiation with 1000Base-X is optional, but encouraged.
In contrast, for 1000Base-T, we f
29 matches
Mail list logo
