I am using the same settings for TCPBUFFSIZE and TCPWindowSize and it works
for me too.

Although, this is what I see in a sniffer capture (Ethereal) during a backup
(Win2k server):

TSM Server --> TSM Client               TCP window size is 17162
TSM Client --> TSM Server               TCP window size is 65535

David Lilly


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herve CHIBOIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Question Regarding TCPWindowsize on W2K
>
> My Win2k servers have the following parameters and it works !!!
>
> TCPBUFFSIZE         512      * max allowed
> TXNBytelimit   10240    * KB (<= 2 GB)
> TCPWindowSize  2048     * max W2K:2048, max NT4:63
>
> rv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven Chaba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 12/12/2001 05:19:23
> PM
>
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Sent by:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject:  Question Regarding TCPWindowsize on W2K
>
>
> From one of my WinTel gurus:
>
> ----- Forwarded by Steven Chaba/RG&E on 12/12/01 11:18 AM -----
>
>                     John Wiersma
>                                          To:     Steven Chaba/RG&E@RG&E
>                     12/12/01             cc:
>                     11:01 AM             Subject:     please post to
> ADSM.org
>
>
>
>
>
> I run TSM 4.1 on an AIX server with NT and 2000 clients.
> I have a question regarding TCPWindowSize on Windows 2000 Server.
> I was advised to set this parameter to 128 on Windows 2000 machines.
> When I do that, this shows up in the dsmerror.log:
> "The TCP window size 128K is not supported by your system. It will be set
> to the allowed size - 63K."
> My consultant says he has not seen this.
> Also, when I run the client on 2000 Professional, I do not have this
> issue.
> Anyone else seen this? Any advice?
> Thanks,
>
> John Wiersma
> Senior Network Analyst
> Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (585) 724-8053

Reply via email to