Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:30:15 +1100 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au> To: C J Michaels <cjm2@earthling.net> Cc: Andrew Reilly <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: (fast) ethernet performance problems/tweaking Message-ID: <20000117093015.B43406@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <NDBBJKPOALBHJNGOLOFNAEBBCAAA.cjm2@earthling.net> References: <20000110075748.A29687@gurney.reilly.home> <NDBBJKPOALBHJNGOLOFNAEBBCAAA.cjm2@earthling.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 11:23:22AM -0500, C J Michaels wrote: > Well, all I can say is, do you have a switch or a hub? If you have a hub, > odds are that it doesn't support full-duplex in the 1st place and that's why > you are getting really poor performance. > > Try forcing the cards to half-duplex and see what happens. No hub (just crossover cable), but thanks for the pointer to potential problems when my network grows a bit bigger. The problem turned out to be NT botching the auto-sensing thing. I had FreeBSD wired to 100baseTX, full-duplex, but NT was set to "AUTO", and was presumably picking half-duplex. When I forced NT to match the mode that FreeBSD was in, everything was happy, for all of the supported modes. (Ob Windows bash: NT required a reboot every time I changed the ethernet config...) There is still a weird performance gotcha with NT's ftp process (it would pause for about one second in four, resulting in a net througput of about 1.2M bytes/s). Samba performance is better, at about 5M/s. Still not the 10M/s you'd hope for, but enough to keep me going at the moment. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000117093015.B43406>