On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
[...]
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
[...]
> > What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
> > on it's own?
> This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
I'be seen much more broken
not the e100 driver, but some switch, (e.g. some matrix) has a buggy
autonegotiation.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be
I wonder if switch ports are configured as 100FDX auto=off or
100HDX auto=off.
from the report I saw it seems that switch ports are 100HDX auto=off
instead of 100FDX auto=off.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just
Paul Dickson wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote:
Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+
kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4.
Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high
speeds over long latency links,
Paul Dickson wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote:
Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+
kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4.
Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high
speeds over long latency links,
I wonder if switch ports are configured as 100FDX auto=off or
100HDX auto=off.
from the report I saw it seems that switch ports are 100HDX auto=off
instead of 100FDX auto=off.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just
not the e100 driver, but some switch, (e.g. some matrix) has a buggy
autonegotiation.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
[...]
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
I'be seen much more broken networks
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
[...]
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote:
> > Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+
> > kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4.
>
> Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high
> speeds over long latency links, not
Paul Dickson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote:
> Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
> Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
> Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
> to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:30 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> >>What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
> >>on it's own?
> >
> >
> > This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 20:30 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> >> What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
> >> on it's own?
> >
linux-os wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
I supplied the actual settings.
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it
auto-negotiate
on it's own?
It goes to half-duplex and runs 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second as stated
above.
That's why I think 1/2 duplex is __really__
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
I have not noticed any
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>> What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
>> on it's own?
>
>This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
>What
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
Lee
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
linux-os wrote:
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
> on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
linux-os wrote:
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM.
If I set both machines to
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM.
If I set both machines to auto-negotiation
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM.
If I set both machines to auto-negotiation
linux-os wrote:
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM.
If I set both machines to
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
linux-os wrote:
Conditions:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
Lee
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
What if you hard set them both to 100/full?
I have not noticed any
linux-os wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote:
I supplied the actual settings.
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it
auto-negotiate
on it's own?
It goes to half-duplex and runs 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second as stated
above.
That's why I think 1/2 duplex is __really__
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 20:30 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:30 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate
on it's own?
This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy).
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP
Paul Dickson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote:
Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines.
Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch.
Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine
to a discard server on another, using
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote:
Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+
kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4.
Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high
speeds over long latency links, not over a
36 matches
Mail list logo
