Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:50:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Drassinower <scottd@cloud9.net> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel EtherExpress 100+ problems Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980602184714.24889B-100000@earl-grey.cloud9.net> In-Reply-To: <199806022244.PAA18069@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Which switch are you using? -- Scott M. Drassinower scottd@cloud9.net Cloud 9 Consulting, Inc. White Plains, NY +1 914 696-4000 http://www.cloud9.net On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, David Greenman wrote: > >netstat -i on the client has no interface errors, netstat -i on the server > >has one output error but no input errors. > > I'm not too surprised by this; the one case where I saw the lossage problem > with the Cisco didn't show any errors on either side, yet there was 20% packet > loss. I'm sure if I had been using NFS in that case that things would have > sucked badly. > > >I might be able to get a hold of another 100 megabit switch, perhaps an > >Intel, and we can see if the problem goes away or if it's the same. I'm > >wondering if there are other people running 100 megabit that might be able > >to duplicate this problem. > > I use Intel Pro/100B and 100+ cards in all of my machines here on a fast > ether switch in full duplex with NFS. I've never had any problems. We also > do the same with freefall/hub/etc. While we've had problems with NFS there > when one of the machines goes down, I don't recall seeing any problems like > you're having with selective processes wedging. > > -DG > > David Greenman > Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980602184714.24889B-100000>