From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 16:58:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B4737B401 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.buzzardnews.com (mail.buzzardnews.com [64.235.227.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C18543FEC for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:58:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from shawn@cpl.net) Received: from shawn ([216.117.221.133]) by mail.buzzardnews.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id h5PNwt485076; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <068501c33b74$ff3d04e0$85dd75d8@shawn> From: "Shawn Ramsey" To: "Mike Hoskins" , References: <05c301c33b51$3d2db020$85dd75d8@shawn> <20030625161455.L64272@fubar.adept.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:53:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: Lots of input errors... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:58:58 -0000 > Improperly negotiating 100-BT/FD and generating lots of late collisions, > for one. Is the switch managed? What does it's syslog output or the > local CLI say about the port(s) in question? In Cisco parlance, you may I don't know offhand, it connects to another company, as its our internet connection. We will contact them and see if they can tell us what the stats (if any, I believe its a Cisco). The card is forced to 100BT/FD on our end, and im sure it is on the other end, though I will have them double check that as well. Performance at autoneg is terrible fwiw... > want to clear the interface counters and observe 'sh int...' output while > transferring a large file. I must say, however, that if negotiation is to > blame (and Cisco's is notoriously bad), you should be seeing degrading > network performance. (I think you'd notice that.) Like I said earlier, autoneg performance is hiddeous, so I don't think that is the issue. > > > I believe the same thing was happening on our > > other interface when we had this much traffic going into it, and its > > plug into a different switch entirely. > > Is it also xl0, and connected to the same brand of switch? One thing to Yes, same type of card, its connected to another ISP, a Cisco but I don't know the model #. > try if you rule out other issues (if the server isn't too busy to allow > it) -- throw in another (non xl) NIC. I haven't used xl* in awhile. I > doubt it's a driver issue, but swapping NICs may rule it out with > certainty. Thats one idea I was planning on doing, just to be sure its not a NIC issue. I am also going to try replacing the motherboard with one with a 64-bit bus, and isolate the gigabit ethernet on the 64-bit bus. That will also change the RAM and CPU just incase there could be a bad piece of hardware other than a NIC.