From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 16 16:35:59 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 89C8116A4CF for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:35:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta2.adelphia.net (mta2.adelphia.net [68.168.78.178]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21E543D39 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:35:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from xela@battleface.com) Received: from battleface.com ([68.64.70.227]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031217002301.OAOE16367.mta13.adelphia.net@battleface.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:23:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:22:59 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Barney Wolff , Kevin Stevens From: Alex (ander Sendzimir) In-Reply-To: <20031216233220.GA26980@pit.databus.com> Message-Id: <2B766ABB-3027-11D8-A624-000A95775140@battleface.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suffering from poor network performance... 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, 17 Dec 2003 00:35:59 -0000 I'm responding to several people at once. References to material to read is fine in place of personal descriptions. However, you know, the 'personal touch' is always good :-) The only thing better than FBSD is the mailing lists. Thanks, folks. Alex > On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 06:36 PM, Kevin Stevens wrote: > > You're probably on the right track with a duplex problem. Most hubs > default to half-duplex, and it's probably the safest choice to use in > any > case - most attempts at full-duplexed hubs I've seen have been poor. Any recommendations on switches for home use? Equipment to stay away from? > First, pull the hub out of the middle and connect the G4 to the Xeon > with > a straight-through Ethernet cable. (All G4 PBs should automatically > handle any crossover required). Repeat your ping tests, and observe > your > duplex config on both machines (should be full duplex). You should see > practically no packet loss. Of course. I didn't even think of this. > Now go back and reconnect each machine to the hub, and verify/confirm > half > duplex for each device. Repeat tests. If you're still getting packet > loss, power cycle the hub. If you're STILL getting packet loss, throw > the > hub out and buy an 8-port switch for $30, and set the machines to > full-duplex. What does power cycling the hub do in this case (Netgear DS108)? Finally, what is the difference between half and full duplex? Kevin, later on you write in response to Charles Swiger: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Charles Swiger wrote: > >> If the device works at both 10 and 100 speed, it's a switch, not a >> hub. > > It is sold as a hub. Most of these "dual-speed" hubs are/were two > hubs, > one of each speed, with a two-port internal switch connecting them. > The > physical ports would auto-join to whichever side the connection speed > indicated. Infuriating to use as tap devices, if you ended up on the > wrong side of the switch from your target, you wouldn't see any > broadcast > traffic. ;) > > KeS Interesting. I didn't know that. What is the difference between a switch and a hub? I thought I understood. Perhaps this is not the case. Thanks. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alexander Sendzimir 802 863 5502 MacTutor of Vermont info @ mactutor . vt . us Colchester, VT 05446 ( not yet active )