Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:29:40 -0800 From: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" <peter@haloflightleader.net> To: <ulf@Alameda.net>, "Robert L Sowders" <rsowders@usgs.gov> Cc: "Allen Landsidel" <all@biosys.net>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Sam Drinkard" <sam@wa4phy.net>, <sthaug@nethelp.no> Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Message-ID: <01dd01c18e6d$9847b420$245b1486@hhlaw.com> References: <OF30244549.1707EE30-ON88256B2E.00811810@wr.usgs.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Look, I'm not for flames myself, but I have to say it gets a whole lot more interesting when there's a forest fire going on. It's like a Jerry Springer show except it's really quiet.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L Sowders
To: ulf@Alameda.net
Cc: Allen Landsidel ; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG ; owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG ; Peter/Los Angeles, CA ; Sam Drinkard ; sthaug@nethelp.no
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing
This should be moved to chat, hardware, hackers, you pick it.
Regardless of what the standard says, it has been my experience that if you have a connection that fails to autoneg to full duplex, then forcing the freebsd nic to 100 full will result in the expected behavior of a 100 full connection. During the negotiation phase the nic says I can only do 100 full and the switch responds with 100 full.
Recent experience with HP-Procurve and NBase Mega switches confirmed that they continually refused to autoneg 100 full until the nics were forced to 100 full. Subsequently turning the nics back to autoneg produced 100 full connections. Why this occurred is beyond me, but after three days of testing that was the fix.
It may be that this is not the experience of the other readers of this thread. That's fine, all I'm saying is, if you're having trouble with full duplex then try forcing the nic to full and see what happens, it works for me.
This really should be moved off stable now.
Ulf Zimmermann <ulf@Alameda.net>
Sent by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
12/26/2001 02:29 PM
Please respond to ulf
To: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" <peter@haloflightleader.net>
cc: Sam Drinkard <sam@wa4phy.net>, Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net>, sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:22:15PM -0800, Peter/Los Angeles, CA wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it kind of strange that
> auto-sensing/auto-negotiating must be enabled on both sides for the feature
> to work a bit strange?
>
> At home, I have a Netgear FS116, a 16-Port unmanaged switch. It is
> auto-sensing/full-duplex 10/100Mbits/sec switch. Therefore, we cannot
> control how it will behave.
>
> On the other hand, I have network cards on my computer which I can set to
> full/half/auto/10/100, whatever combination I like, and yet, the switch will
> continue to work.
>
> What I'm getting at is that just because one end is not set to
> auto-negotiate/auto-sense that there will be no communication at all. Say,
> that one end is set manually, and the other end is automatic. The automatic
> end will set itself to the parameters of the one that is manually set. This
> is how my network works. Thus, I don't believe that both ends, need to be
> set the same way in order to work in this scenario.
>
> The automatic will automatically negotiate/auto-sense to whatever can't be
> changed, as a result, they work. Or is this even what you folks are arguing
> about?
I do not know if this is written in the standard, but I have seen devices
where if you turn off AutoNeg, they won't respond at all to the packets.
But I have also seens devices which will still respond, but just to their
fixed setting. I personal prefer it that if I turn off autoneg, it won't
do anything, because that gives you a fixed point. Any production system
I always set switch and host to full 100.
--
Regards, Ulf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204
You can find my resume at: http://seven.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Look, I'm not for flames myself, but I have to say
it gets a whole lot more interesting when there's a forest fire going on.
It's like a Jerry Springer show except it's really quiet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rsowders@usgs.gov href="mailto:rsowders@usgs.gov">Robert L
Sowders</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=ulf@Alameda.net
href="mailto:ulf@Alameda.net">ulf@Alameda.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=all@biosys.net
href="mailto:all@biosys.net">Allen Landsidel</A> ; <A
title=freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
href="mailto:freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG">freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG</A> ; <A
title=owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
href="mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG">owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG</A>
; <A title=peter@haloflightleader.net
href="mailto:peter@haloflightleader.net">Peter/Los Angeles, CA</A> ; <A
title=sam@wa4phy.net href="mailto:sam@wa4phy.net">Sam Drinkard</A> ; <A
title=sthaug@nethelp.no href="mailto:sthaug@nethelp.no">sthaug@nethelp.no</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:44
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for
testing</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>This should be moved to chat,
hardware, hackers, you pick it.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>Regardless of what the standard says, it has been my experience that if
you have a connection that fails to autoneg to full duplex, then forcing the
freebsd nic to 100 full will result in the expected behavior of a 100 full
connection. During the negotiation phase the nic says I can only do 100
full and the switch responds with 100 full.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>Recent experience with HP-Procurve and NBase Mega
switches confirmed that they continually refused to autoneg 100 full until the
nics were forced to 100 full. Subsequently turning the nics back to
autoneg produced 100 full connections. Why this occurred is beyond me,
but after three days of testing that was the fix.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>It may be that this is not the experience of the other
readers of this thread. That's fine, all I'm saying is, if you're having
trouble with full duplex then try forcing the nic to full and see what
happens, it works for me.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>This
really should be moved off stable now.</FONT> <BR><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>Ulf Zimmermann
<ulf@Alameda.net></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Sent
by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>12/26/2001 02:29 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to ulf</FONT> <BR></P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> To:
"Peter/Los Angeles, CA"
<peter@haloflightleader.net></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1> cc: Sam
Drinkard <sam@wa4phy.net>, Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net>,
sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> Subject:
Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for
testing</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>On
Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:22:15PM -0800, Peter/Los Angeles, CA wrote:<BR>>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it kind of strange that<BR>>
auto-sensing/auto-negotiating must be enabled on both sides for the
feature<BR>> to work a bit strange?<BR>> <BR>> At home, I have a
Netgear FS116, a 16-Port unmanaged switch. It is<BR>>
auto-sensing/full-duplex 10/100Mbits/sec switch. Therefore, we
cannot<BR>> control how it will behave.<BR>> <BR>> On the other hand,
I have network cards on my computer which I can set to<BR>>
full/half/auto/10/100, whatever combination I like, and yet, the switch
will<BR>> continue to work.<BR>> <BR>> What I'm getting at is that
just because one end is not set to<BR>> auto-negotiate/auto-sense that
there will be no communication at all. Say,<BR>> that one end is set
manually, and the other end is automatic. The automatic<BR>> end will
set itself to the parameters of the one that is manually set.
This<BR>> is how my network works. Thus, I don't believe that
both ends, need to be<BR>> set the same way in order to work in this
scenario.<BR>> <BR>> The automatic will automatically
negotiate/auto-sense to whatever can't be<BR>> changed, as a result, they
work. Or is this even what you folks are arguing<BR>> about?<BR><BR>I
do not know if this is written in the standard, but I have seen
devices<BR>where if you turn off AutoNeg, they won't respond at all to the
packets.<BR>But I have also seens devices which will still respond, but just
to their<BR>fixed setting. I personal prefer it that if I turn off autoneg, it
won't<BR>do anything, because that gives you a fixed point. Any production
system<BR>I always set switch and host to full 100.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Regards,
Ulf.<BR><BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Ulf
Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204<BR>You can
find my resume at: http://seven.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html<BR><BR>To
Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org<BR>with "unsubscribe
freebsd-stable" in the body of the
message<BR></FONT><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01dd01c18e6d$9847b420$245b1486>