From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Feb 3 10:52:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29825 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:52:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [12.9.219.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29762 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ejs@bfd.com) Received: from HARLIE.bfd.com (bastion.bfd.com [12.9.219.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20059; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:51:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ejs@bfd.com) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:51:56 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" To: David Greenman cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Excessive collisions on Ethernet In-Reply-To: <199902031059.CAA01058@implode.root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Anything less than 50% collision rate is okay and doesn't reduce the > throughput significantly. All of the numbers below are in the noise. I'd say that depends on the apps. We had a production system running ESix (early S5R4 implementation) that had an application that ran multicast, using 486DX33 CPUs and SMC Elite16 NICs, on a coaxial net. We started seeing severe collisions, well below the 50% rate, that markedly impacted the reliability of the system. We changed over to fully switched 10BaseT (the previous tech director had a rabid fear of 10BaseT) and the reliability problems went away completely. Then again, I hate collisions so much that I run switched 100baseT at home (got a great deal on an 8 port switch :-) It's nice when the harddrive on either end is the bottleneck for local FTPs. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message