We are getting 80% loss which is creating an almost unusable system. These guys are only opening email and entering data into websites.
I think I'm going to roll back to the old SRSS because at this point I think it is a glitch. -Jimmy On 18 Sep 2007 10:45:53 -0500, Darrel Hankerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jimmy Fox writes: > > We don't have bad latency. Just huge amounts of dropped packets. > > Sorry, I wrote "latency" when I meant "packet loss" as measured by > utcapture. We can easily trigger 20% packet loss on simple flash > animations. At this level, the desktop is largely unresponsive. > > Darrel makes me think that perhaps because all DTU traffic is funneled > through a single interface the server doesn't know how to adjust for > the lower network's bandwidth. Since the local LAN is 100Mb, it > doesn't know to throttle down for the 3Mb network? I only have one > Interface to provide to the DTU traffic so I can't test this theory. > > Well...we have exceptionally good networking. We tested 100 Mb/s due > to recommendations by Sun for somewhat similar problems. In our case, > connecting to 100 Mb/s Cisco switch ports helps Ray 2 packet loss, > but has little affect on the Ray 1 problem. > > Our experience where we have very little packet loss on direct > connections through inexpensive switches, or routing through another > host with Rays on one interface and the world on the other, should > explain something. We finally admitted defeat and used workarounds > (either a host with two interfaces doing the routing, or replace with > Ray 2 and run the X4200 interface to a 100 Mb/s Cisco switch port). > > -- > Darrel Hankerson > _______________________________________________ > SunRay-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users > _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
