Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:48:25 -0500 (EST) "Rich Braun" <[hidden email]> wrote: > John Boland wrote: > > I had a similar problem that we tracked down to a duplex mismatch > > between all of the switch/router/firewall uplink ports and the server. > > basically, auto-negotiate is NOT your friend! > > A couple weeks ago I had an unrelated performance problem when putting a new > server online, and dope-slapped myself for not remembering to check duplex > mismatch. (A port was set to 100/full, the server autonegotiated incorrectly > to 100/half when I expected 1000/full.) > > But this one is a lot more obscure than that. As the first responder pointed > out, the first question is why TCP wouldn't correct the problem--hence there > is a 99.999% chance this has to be at protocol layer 4 or above, not inside > the network. (The online backup vendor has yet to figure that one out...) > > A mismatched duplex problem won't cause applications to completely fail, but > run slower than expected.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |