From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 30 21:33:17 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E533A16A41C for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 21:33:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (www1.multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386F843D1F for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 21:33:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.0.2.R) with ESMTP id md50001447711.msg for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 22:27:46 +0100 Message-ID: <00de01c5655f$08a4e550$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Sebastian Ahndorf" , "Kris Kennaway" References: <20050529221024.4fu2p4yjusk04k0g@mail.banot.net> <20050529212705.GA64753@xor.obsecurity.org> <1117447400.5384.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050530104928.GB79877@sr.se> <1117465224.9934.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <429B44BD.7070806@pp.nic.fi><20050530191843.GA82875@xor.obsecurity.org> <429B7DF6.8040704@it-is-warlock.de> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:32:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 30 May 2005 22:27:46 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 30 May 2005 22:27:46 +0100 Cc: Imobach ??? Sosa , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor network performance: a lot of timeouts X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 21:33:18 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastian Ahndorf" > Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>Both sides must have same config, autosense should work if there is no >>>config possibility in other end. >> >> autosense may in fact not work, especially on low-quality NICs like rl. >> > > I don't agree to that. > I had similar problems with my network using a cheap switch with some > realtek nics. I had the nics running 100baseTX Full Duplex. > Changing this to autosense made the problems gone. > > Reason (as some people of the german questions-list told me): > Many cheap switches always send their autosensepakets, and have great > problems if the nics connected to the switch do not response to the > autosensepakets (cause they are configured to 10/100baseTX full/half > duplex). > Also realtek nics are far away from being good nics, they work without > problems with the autosensemode and a cheap switch for me (and many > other people I know). > > I would suggest the starter of this thread to use autosense with his nic > (if not tested yet). Quite a few 100tx nic / switch combinations misbehave when both sides are not set to the same be that 100fdx or auto sense. I've actually never seen a problem with 100tx autoneg as long as both ends had it selected and there wasn't a cable problem. Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.