Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:12:41 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Odd network issue ... *very* slow scp between two servers Message-ID: <20040307141241.GB28241@wjv.com> In-Reply-To: <20040307132433.EAFE216A4E1@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20040307132433.EAFE216A4E1@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org, the prominent pundit, on Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 05:24 while half mumbling, half-witicized: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:26:14 -0400 (AST) > From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> > Subject: Re: Odd network issue ... *very* slow scp between two servers > To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> > Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > Message-ID: <20040306212430.F13247@ganymede.hub.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Wow, okay, switching to 10baseT/UTP, full duplex is atrocious too: > 1038785 bytes received in 74.30 seconds (13.65 KB/s) > So, bug with full-duplex on the em devices? > Switching to 100baseTX, half-duplex gives me an error though, > but seems to work: I saw something similar when an OS/X machine was having slow transfers while the BSD's were not. When I did a traceroute to the adjacent machine which was on a separate /24 network, the packets went to the switch, to the router which tne sent it back to the switch, and to the destination. I don't know what prompted me to perform a traceroute between two machines that were on the same switch, but it was two hops instead of just direct. There was also an intervening bridge - post switch / pre router that added delay. This was on a Cisco 2948. This may have nothing to do with your problem and you didn't indicated if the machines were on the same subnet or not. Just throwing this out as a point of interest. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040307141241.GB28241>