From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 05:12:57 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD441065678 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 05:12:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DA28FC0C for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 05:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id o795CuB2051169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:12:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id o795CuB1051168; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA05571; Sun, 8 Aug 10 22:06:13 PDT Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:10:30 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jcw@speakeasy.net Message-Id: <4c5f8dc6.IUSZ/egsTlgYHE/G%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <4C55E4B5.7000201@speakeasy.net> <8627B125-F3BB-42B2-98CF-600E21A93A2D@hiwaay.net> <5628C9CD-0F16-4C0E-8B89-B4ECCA35C933@hiwaay.net> <4C5F7141.9030203@speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <4C5F7141.9030203@speakeasy.net> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Typical Network Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:12:58 -0000 "Jason C. Wells" wrote: > By process of elimination (swap cables, swap ports, try different > host pairs) I was able to discover that a single server on my home > LAN was getting about 1.6% performance compared to other servers > getting 94% ... > What would be the next step to figuring out why this host's network > performance is slow? My next step would be to check whether this host and its hub/switch port agree on speed and duplex -- occasionally some combination of netcard phy and switch type gets the negotiation wrong. Duplex mismatch, in particular, can have huge performance impact.