From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 7 09:23:49 2004 Return-Path: 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 704E016A51F for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.distrust.net (mail.distrust.net [69.93.230.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433C843D3F for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:23:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dsze@mail.distrust.net) Received: from mail.distrust.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.distrust.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i27HNmbR040133; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:23:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dsze@mail.distrust.net) Received: (from dsze@localhost) by mail.distrust.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i27HNltV040132; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:23:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dsze) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:23:47 -0600 From: David Sze To: Mike Tancsa Message-ID: <20040307172347.GA40032@mail.distrust.net> References: <20040306130937.N71806@ganymede.hub.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040306180314.08adede0@209.112.4.2> <20040306210515.M13247@ganymede.hub.org> <20040306211328.H13247@ganymede.hub.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040306210359.08fc35a8@209.112.4.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040306210359.08fc35a8@209.112.4.2> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Odd network issue ... *very* slow scp between two servers X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:23:49 -0000 On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:11:09PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > I would in the following order > a) check the settings on the switch. AutoNeg *only* works when both sides > are set to auto-neg. If both sides are not auto, make sure both sides are > the same for speed and duplex settings. To add to this point, even with both sides set to AutoNeg, it seems there can still be problems with em devices. The company I work for has a customer with IBM xSeries 345 machines, which have dual em devices onboard. They had the machines hooked up to a Cisco 2924 switch, both sides were set to AutoNeg. Both sides also said they negotiated to 100/Full, but the number of interface errors was through the roof. The problems went away when both sides were forced to 100/Full insted of AutoNeg. In this case, Marc may be SOL if he must use the unmanaged switch.