From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jun 4 5:51:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from qatar.net.qa (qatar.net.qa [194.133.33.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3E115259 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Arabian@DAL.NET) Received: from ddeh.qatar.net.qa (Arabian@ddeh.qatar.net.qa [194.133.35.121]) by qatar.net.qa (8.8.8/Internet-Qatar) with SMTP id PAA27913; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:49:17 +0300 (GMT) Received: by ddeh.qatar.net.qa with Microsoft Mail id <01BEAEA2.85CEA540@ddeh.qatar.net.qa>; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:54:26 +-300 Message-ID: <01BEAEA2.85CEA540@ddeh.qatar.net.qa> From: Arabian To: "'Bruce A. Mah'" Cc: "'Arabian'" , "'bmah@california.sandia.gov'" , "'net@FreeBSD.ORG'" Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:54:10 +-300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bruce wrote: If memory serves me right, Arabian wrote:=20 >> My server on ISP powered by FreeBSD also my own server is P II 333 = with 128 MB SDRAM my NIC is >>IntelEtherExpress Pro 10/100B Ethernet = FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE, the router where my server connected to on the ISP = is also >>P II 333 powered by FreeBSD. Could that router being problem = and causing any latency for my server and I should ask >>them to connect = it to the Core directly ?=20 >I'll try to answer this, but I have to admit that I'm not completely = understanding the situation. I think you have a server of some >sort = running FreeBSD. It sounds like it's collocated at your ISP, and you = have another FreeBSD machine acting as a router >between your server and = some subnet that's run by the ISP.=20 _Very_ true, this what I'm having now. That machine acting like router = between my server and the ISP DS3s backbones and as firewall to proect = the server connected to it from attacks ICMPs ...etc. :) >You want to know if having that router in the middle is adding = excessive latency, and if the server should consequently be >attached = directly to the ISP's subnet. Is that right?=20 Right. >Without some more details, it's difficult to answer your question. For = example, what kind of services are you providing?=20 I'm runing IRC server. >Where are the clients? IRC users. >Are the networks 10Mbps or 100Mbps? 100 Mpbs Full Duplex. >Is the router doing anything other than routing packets? Just routing packets, and as firewall to proect the server connected to = it from attacks ICMPs ...etc. What other hosts are the networks on each side of your router?=20 I'm not sure Iunderstand this. >Why is the router there in the first place?=20 They are using software to control the bandwidth usage this is the = reason, my server has dedicated10 Mbps. >The big questions: Do you think you are actually experiencing any = performance problems, and if so, could you quantify this? If I = >understand your environment correctly, I think that having the router = in between shouldn't be a problem at all for you. For sake >of argument, = if your server is serving Web pages to random clients on the Internet, = it's a fair guess that there's going to be a lot >more latency between = the clients and your ISP than there's going to be through your router. = (For something to try, login to your >server and ping random hosts on = the Internet, observing the round-trip time statistics. Then login to = your router and do the same. >Compare the round-trip times in both = cases.)=20 There is no performance problem actually, I just wanted to make sure I = wont have it on the future, avoiding the problem before it happenes = better than solving it after problems jumped. :) > What is the different between half and full duplex lans ? In the = context of full-duplex vs. half-duplex 10baseT or 100baseTX >Ethernet: = In half-duplex, only one system on a cable can be transmitting a packet = at a time. In the common case of a host >attached to a hub, this means = that the host can only either be transmitting a packet or receiving a = packet but not both. This >situation is analogous to the original thick = and thin Ethernets, which were long coaxial cables. Access to transmit = on the cables >was (is) shared between all the attached hosts. An = important part of the Ethernet standard is the algorithm by which hosts = >contend for access to this shared network. With Ethernet switches, you = have the option of full-duplex Ethernet transmission. This >basically = means that a host can be both transmitting a packet and receiving a = packet on the cable at the same time.=20 Great information they changed it to _Full_ Duplex now, per my request. >Hope this helps...=20 Well, actually you gave me alot of information, very useful, and you are = big help. *smile* Waiting to hear from you again, thanks alot for your time. :) >Bruce.=20 Sincerly, -Arabian aka Abullah To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message