Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:53:27 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Kent Ketell <kketell@juniper.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: HP DL360-P4 slow network writes Message-ID: <4B6EF5DF6A59A5B8360B82B5@dog.dmpriest.net.uk> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEKDFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEKDFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On 01 June 2005 00:37 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > Hi Kent, > > I think it's the Broadcom<->switch connection. You said you changed > switches - but I'm betting you just swapped in another Foundry. We have > had trouble with the Broadcom gig E adapters under WinXP and certain > switches. > Try swapping in a 3com or some such. And certainly also try the system > on a 100BaseT port as well. FWIW - we've got a bunch of the DL360 G4's and found a very nasty problem with the way the onboard Broadcom reacted to our HP switches - by default we forced the NIC's to 100Mbit/FDX. This resulted in a system that could send 'small' packets fine (e.g. dns) - but bogged down on anything large [it'd work, but not fun getting about 6k/sec for some transfers). After fiddling with the switch ports, putting the NIC's back to 'auto-select' fixed it - which is ironic, as we have a bunch of Intel Pro1000's that need exactly the opposite to work properly [i.e. we _have_ to lock them at 100/FDX to work with the switches]. I love 'standards' :) -Karl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B6EF5DF6A59A5B8360B82B5>