Randy,
What is the difference between a 100 hub and 10/100 autosensing switch that you
predict will fix this problem? Since my original post, I have had the machine on a
10/100 hub uplinked to the main switches, and it behaved the same. (Yes, I realize
this is in your NOT section, it's just a mention.)
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Steve Yuroff
Network and System Administrator
The Hiebing Group
Madison, WI.
On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:24 PM, Grein, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve,
>There's a strong possibility that you're suffering from one or more of the
>dreaded 'stupid switch, stupid plug&play' syndrome. If you can, put it on a
>fast ethernet hub (NOT a 10/100 hub!) and test. If that works, fix the
>switch port to 100 half duplex.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Yuroff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 0.8 MB/min?
>
> I was plesantly surprised when someone from Dantz Tech Support
>(SHAME on me for not noting who it was!) phoned me to discuss this post.
>Let me pubicly thank Dantz for taking the step to phone me to help.
>Unfortunately, we did not pinpoint where the problem lies, but there are
>some updates to the story, which I'll share in hopes that it will someday
>help someone else (cuz we all search the archives, right?):
>
> This morning I started an immediate duplicate of the source machine
>(B&W G3) to my archive tape set. It started at a typical 65MB/sec, but
>again the speed fell through the day, looking like this:
>
> 11:00A - 65MB/min
> 1:37P - 15.4MB/min
> 3:16P - 10.7MB/min
> 4:52P - 8.1MB/min
> 5:30P - 7.4MB/min- which is as I type right now.
>
> I have screenshots that show the speed and monitor window from
>IPNetMonitor, in case they may be of value.
>
> Prior to the backup, I ran DiskWarrior 2.0 on the client, which did
>find problems in the Volume Information of the only disk. Although DW
>reported them fixed, my speed declines persist.
>
> To address your questions and points, and give more info:
> The original post came on a Saturday morning. Over Friday night, my
>network traffic was at it's lowest possible, so I doubt network congestion
>is the problem.
> My local operations are at the speed I expect. The backup server
>can copy to from an ASIP server at about 7MB/sec.
> Source and destination for the duplicate were both Retro clients.
>There would be no communication problems with a tape drive in the original
>post.
> Network is 100B switched.
> Backup server has 224MB of RAM, 15MB set for Retro preferred.
> Between the original duplicate and the above Immediate Backup, I ran
>a normal incremental backup on my LAN. Copied 7 gigs from an ASIP server at
>71MB/sec average. Entire copy here is just over 3 gigs.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
