From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Aug 18 22:40:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA24040 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:40:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA24035 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca [204.244.186.218] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #4) id 0z90y0-0006KU-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:39:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:39:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Wes Peters cc: stephen@farrell.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B network collisions In-Reply-To: <199808190433.WAA05841@obie.softweyr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Wes Peters wrote: > support full duplex? If not, that is where your problem lies. Full > duplex is only of use if EVERY item in your network supports it. No. Full duplex is of benefit to any device to connected to full-duplex ports. Switches will happily transfer data between half and full duplex ports. In fact the early Catalyst 1900 switches only support half-duplex on the 10BT ports, and full-duplex only on the 100BT ports. But that is ok for small workgroups where the server would get a full-duplex 100BT port. However, the original poster didn't even mention if he/she was using a switch! I suspect not. > -- > "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" > > Wes Peters Softweyr LLC > http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message