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.
Exac
e 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/
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 + Op
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 o
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 cabl
At 07:08 PM 5/16/01, 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.
>
>The port has received 231,187,726 bytes or 1,849,5
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 j
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.
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
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
sage -
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 f
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
