From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 10 05:05:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB9316A4CE for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:05:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA4643D31 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:05:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) iBA55Ev91872; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:05:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Martin Hepworth" , "Patrick Lindholm" Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:05:14 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <41B814B5.9010407@solid-state-logic.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Samba/two Win2K machines X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:05:28 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Martin Hepworth > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:03 AM > To: Patrick Lindholm > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Samba/two Win2K machines > > > Patrick > > doing this over a 10mbs half duplex network will give lots of collisions > (a half duplex network uses one set of wires to communicate both ways - > hence you get collisions as both machines try to talk at the same time. > So what. Collisions are normal on a half-duplex ethernet network. Are you one of those people who think that just because the word collision is used that they are bad? What do you think people did before switches were invented? > Also the smb protocal isn't very efficient so a long time like this > isn't unexpected even if running 100mbs! > This isn't true either. For starters he already said that speed between the BSD box and the w2k system was fine, and that only speed between the 2 w2k boxes was slow. Since each of those connections use the SMB protocol, how can it be fine between bsd and windows and not fine between windows and windows? If the protocol was as slow as your claiming, it would be slow between the bsd box and the w2k box. > Prob best way if to spend a few (insert local currency) and buy a small > 100mbs switch which will help esp if you're network cards can run 100mbs. > That may help but not because it's a switch and not because its fast ethernet. It may help because it is possible that his problem is that the network adapter cards aren't correctly sending and receiving data between themselves and his existing hub. These kinds of incompatabilities sometimes happen espically between older 10baset non-autonegotiating dumb hubs, and new 10/100 autonegotiating cards. It also may help because one of the symptoms of a failing hub is that it gets -really slow- when passing a lot of data, and his hub could be failing. But this also could be the result of some misconfiguration on his windows sytems. That should be eliminated before throwing money at hardware. Ted