Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:20:46 -0600 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: "Jack L. Stone" <jackstone@sage-one.net> Cc: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interface collisions Message-ID: <20030331182046.GC61524@grumpy.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20030331103405.013e5298@sage-one.net> References: <20030331143804.GG322@ns1.webwarrior.net> <3.0.5.32.20030331082034.01414bf8@sage-one.net> <20030331143804.GG322@ns1.webwarrior.net> <3.0.5.32.20030331103405.013e5298@sage-one.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:34:05AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote: [...] > > Also, I agree that the collisions are very small and were cached by the > switch, not lost necessarily. However, the sudden appearance over the past > 2-3 days indicates a change that is not for the better and more concerned > about the trend. Not "cached by the switch" else your rl driver would not have known about it. The rl driver logged the "collision" because it started sending a packet and was not able to copy it 100% in real time so it concluded somebody else was transmitting at the same time. If the card is configured in full duplex mode it should not be verifying copy of its own data when sending, by definition. Unless there is some sort of out-of-band communications between ethernet ports operating via full duplex. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030331182046.GC61524>