From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 28 16:24:40 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99FAB85427 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:24:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luzar722@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9056B2E60 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:24:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luzar722@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g13so21400487ioj.1 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iGPudFUngKN4aS9FViHB9Y3+UZfyL4s61tvsPQHGI5Y=; b=wwaWJ9vIAskPBPqTZUIUceC+VFLO6LyIhDMV/mV1rBGizR39kJTg7xEfdXN7ZEDNUw pB+RtI8asKfMFLvBL2TqKH/DH15xLGBa6c03qm8pMk4882EDL1ebAn6LjYemYW/kGsGP PZ1cCiRG9yeltqKzqGU9ij/tXK5W5QzEnqR6BVMdyUvqjlYCQjcX/ZIuU6R7X+/ilDdc +WMAMSwbbvvqSESbQLfCNQF9Q0zFH2pHSyZFIX9pZvN5+RMV4FkUd5DuE8xR2AbK1SN9 T8powN/InE7vyZYUbnztae2Mggb6g6deR1+q6ZWVc+ata83z+Q4JFGQ0p36z95lRlHK/ oSQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iGPudFUngKN4aS9FViHB9Y3+UZfyL4s61tvsPQHGI5Y=; b=NmGVDl8YGtCksuDVwUnR0hKWbk/8ddd5i8EU667XOlOXETf4FFBtXt510zOlNywODR ZGH9o9daiUIsXfyRHV4v4ow6lP8cIZaGBhGfQL20oq+pxs5gdI5lXLCEB9dG4Yk1rbfN +vFI5MY06+fDmoYSmMfKxsUF+axGsc7ki3bb+v13wzjfOYlgP0tntH/WKLz/ZTPij4ov +oL5PhA04dlHm4ghv5loQ+HkeaVHwb+t67c2CUrjev3a72RIW3/ZcRzm16V4T9iz10Me y5jmy1uGIaqW4g3KgKd42ha0tmal/xx7OjVJSwPOjaWMLDWzKJbxkUECMnlc0nL1Dg/n QCVw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIETY/vvnwAU52f7N1Yv0PETYhNbrnPah0T2mMYCvdd+Z3h+EiA8ED/S6pkNX6rbw== X-Received: by 10.107.21.66 with SMTP id 63mr4285984iov.59.1467131079884; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.3] (cpe-184-56-210-236.neo.res.rr.com. [184.56.210.236]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y73sm11803542iof.32.2016.06.28.09.24.39 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5772A4D6.50301@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:24:54 -0400 From: Ernie Luzar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: LAN slow or dead, intermittently References: <20160624112659.a9fd454b8d05166befb5876d@3dresearch.com> <57712130.2050603@gmail.com> <20160628093156.f46f1d912f797ff75dd6f016@3dresearch.com> In-Reply-To: <20160628093156.f46f1d912f797ff75dd6f016@3dresearch.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:24:40 -0000 Janos Dohanics wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:50:56 -0400 > Ernie Luzar wrote: > >> Janos Dohanics wrote: >>> Hello List, >>> >>> Please help me figure out what makes my LAN intermittently slow or >>> just about dead. >>> >>> [...] >> I also had performance problems with 10.3 that did not happen with >> 10.2 and older releases. When the lan went dead I had to reboot the >> host system to get things working again because users were on my >> back. I never let this condition exist to see if it would resolve it >> self. >> >> My first solution was to go back to using 10.2 and everything was >> fine. One evening I swapped the hosts 10.2 hard drive with the 10.3 >> hard drive so I could test some more. Just by luck I checked the date >> & time by issuing the "date" command. The date was correct but the >> time was -2 hours off. I manually set the correct time using the >> "date" command and let 10.3 run as production. With in 5 days the lan >> network was having performance problems again. I checked the host >> time and it was off by -30 minutes. I replaced the host motherboard >> battery with a new one and manually set the correct time again. >> Things ran ok for about 2 weeks when it happened again. This time the >> time was off by -2 minutes. >> >> This time I enabled the base ntpd time daemon by adding this to >> rc.conf ntpd_enable="YES" >> ntpd_sync_on_start="YES" >> >> Since then 10.3 has been running ok [2 months now]. I think some >> thing in the network stack code changed between 10.2 and 10.3 that >> made the time sync between lan nodes and the host, time range >> dependent. >> >> I would say that checking the time on your host and all the machines >> on the lan would be a good place to start looking for your problem. >> >> Good luck > > Well, date(1) shows a time which seems reasonably correct... it didn't > occur to me that an inaccurate clock could also be the cause of the > kind of problem I described. Thanks anyway... > When I posted the above reply I also included your email address Janos Dohanics It got bounced and some spam harvesting dns message came back. With the reply you just posted shows me your reading the questions list and posting BS just to drive traffic to your email address harvesting web site. To all who read this thread, beware, ignore all posts from this domain 3dresearch.com