From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 31 10:58:43 2003 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 44B9137B404 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sage-one.net (adsl-65-71-135-137.dsl.crchtx.swbell.net [65.71.135.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170DC43F3F for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:58:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jackstone@sage-one.net) Received: from sagea (adsl-65-68-247-73.dsl.crchtx.swbell.net [65.68.247.73]) by sage-one.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h2VIwcLl077577; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:58:38 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jackstone@sage-one.net) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20030331125835.013dc868@sage-one.net> X-Sender: jackstone@sage-one.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:58:35 -0600 To: David Kelly From: "Jack L. Stone" In-Reply-To: <20030331182046.GC61524@grumpy.dyndns.org> References: <3.0.5.32.20030331103405.013e5298@sage-one.net> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=4.5 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.44-sageamerules_v1 cc: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interface collisions 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: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:58:46 -0000 At 12:20 PM 3.31.2003 -0600, David Kelly wrote: >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 1) I changed cables - NO fix 2) I switched switches - NO fix 3) I set the NIC to full-duplex "on the fly" - YES - Fixed Setting the interface to full-duplex "on the fly" has now stopped all collisions on this NIC. And, you are right of course about where the caching is occurring with this symptom. Many thanks again.... Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Administrator SageOne Net http://www.sage-one.net jackstone@sage-one.net