Markus - I just ran into this problem...and here are the facts... I had a 1U with 2 onboard Intel NIC's (ProLiant DL360) Installed an Intel - based Gigabit Ethernet NIC into the server and started to encounter POP3 issues (server would hang, could authenticate, but could not get messages retrieved through any email client or telnet) I installed every update possible, tried every configuration parameter on the NIC to no avail. I removed the Gigabit Ethernet card and re-enabled one of the onboard NIC's, and alas! All is well again.
So to answer your question, you really shouldn't have any issues with the PRO/100 Intel NICS, as that is what I have in my servers with no issues... For a pop3/smtp test try this site http://www.etestinglabs.com/benchmarks/svrtools/email/t1intro.asp?visitor=X or here http://www.antara.net/ There are a lot of them out there... Warm Regards, Shawn Faulkingham MCSE, CCNA, MCDBA Indoff Incorporated [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] FIXED! Imail SLOW When Running On Fast W2K Hardware Hi Dev, Until today I've read this interesting thread without beeing affected directly. But now I've an server here where I should install Imail. The ingredients are an P4 1.7 GHz, W2k, and a Intel Pro/100 NIC The best of all: It's a 1HE server and the only free PCI slot is used by an IDE-Raid-Controller. So there is no way to disable the onboard NIC and use another card. Because the problem is known, I prefer to test first if this system will also be affected by this troughput-problem before release it as running system. 2 questions: A.) Anyone here knows a good Email-Stress-Test tool for SMTP/POP3 Connections? B.) I've seen on the configuration Tool of the Intel NIC a lot of parameters that probably can help to solve this "caching problem". Are we sure if it's realy the caching algorithm causing the problem? (see screen shots in the atachment) Markus > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dev > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [IMail Forum] FIXED! Imail SLOW When Running On Fast > W2K Hardware > > > > Hopefully the following may be of some help to others. > > I had a similar problem as Todd. Here is a part of his > thread: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5 > 9929.html > > In my case, an existing NT4 Imail installation was > moved to a new, very fast (P4-2.4GHz/512MB) Dell > PowerEdge running W2K, hardware RAID, Imail 7.13, and > KWM 3.0. > > The result? We had inexplicably slow logins, flaky mail > downloads, GLACIAL webmail, and random SMTP/POP hangs--and > all with CPU utilization near ZERO. Oh yeah, and a lot of > ticked-off users!! > > Anyway, after a week of debugging, hardware swapping, > cloned testbeds, performance logging, and analyzing > over 200 MB of packet captures, I now have it humming > along quite nicely, thank you. > > The usual caveat here: The following fixes worked for > me, your mileage may vary. :) > > > 1. My dual-homed Dell server was equipped with an Intel > Gigabit ethernet integrated into the motherboard, along > with an Intel Pro100/S NIC. I noticed in a post that > Todd extracted from Ipswitch TechSupp the stunning > admission that Imail is incompetent at reliably > communicating with two popular server adapters: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5 > 9332.html > > Guess what? Tech support is right. My tests showed that > Imail would randomly just stop communicating for > varying periods of time over these two adapters. This > particular "going into limbo" issue was resolved by replacing > them with two 3C905C's. > > Note that to fully eliminate this issue, it was > necessary to completely DISABLE the onboard Gigabit > Ethernet adapter in the server's CMOS setup. The second > Intel Pro adapter card was also physically removed from > the box. > > ISSUE SUMMARY: No fast, server-quality NICs are allowed > within sight of an Imail box. Ipswitch apparently wants > us to continue running the latest 1998-era hardware. :) > > > 2. Packet captures indicated that Imail did not like > operating over a NIC with more than one IP address > assigned to it. This may be somehow related to the > Imail programming blunder of binding to all IP address. > Inexplicably, the speed of the machine may also play a role, > since an identical multiple IP setup cloned to a P2/266 had > no such Alzheimer's issues. And yes, the Imail address WAS > the primary IP. The fact is that removing the second IP on > this P4 made a HUGE difference in Webmail stability and > speed. It doesn't make sense, but as I said, YMMV. > > ISSUE SUMMARY: Only one IP address per NIC on a Pentium > 4 box running Imail. > > > 3. Once the above was sorted out (users--especially > WebMail--noticed a HUGE difference in performance and > reliability with the two fixes above), there was still a > mysterious 1.5 - 6 second delay on some incoming SMTP and POP > sessions. > > The cause? In this case, it was NetBIOS name lookups > timing out. > > To verify the problem, look for this unanswered NBT > query request string in your packet > captures: "*<00...(15)>" > > Without getting too involved in the machinations of > NetBIOS or of our internal network and firewall layout, > basically Windows 2000 (or perhaps a 'getHostAddress()' call > by Imail) was insisting on performing an unnecessary reverse > lookup (computer name from IP > address) on the incoming connection. It was sending a > node status request directly to the perceived > source--my NAT Public IP address (the equivalent of a > "nbtstat -A <ip_address>"). > > The irony? After NetBIOS repeatedly times out and > finally gives up trying to resolve the name, W2K then > simply ignores the timeout and successfully proceeds > with the SMTP/POP connection! Sheeesh! > > The solution? If the NetBIOS query can't be resolved > with properly configured WINS/DNS, go into the HOSTS > file (systemroot\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\) on your > Imail box and give the IP address query that is timing > out a name to satisfy the lookup. In my case (failing > to resolve the NAT Public IP), this is what it looks > like: > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost #existing entry > ... ... #more existing entries > 207.178.203.99 anyname.mydomainname.com #BINGO! > > > Note that the NetBIOS timeout issue was not present on > an otherwise identically configured NT4 box. > > ISSUE SUMMARY: Look for unexplained response delays of > multiples of 1.5 seconds. If you have them, sniff the wire > (make sure to check ALL interfaces on multi-homed > boxes!) for unresolved NetBIOS queries. If necessary, > simply create a suitable Hosts file entry to make > Windows happy! > > By the way, the Hosts file is checked every time name > resolution is attempted. Changes in it take effect > immediately and do NOT require a reboot! > > As I said, the box absolutely rocks now. I don't claim > to know why some of these fixes worked, just that they > did. Perhaps this will provide a helpful starting point > to others facing similar inexplicable slowdowns. > > Cheers, > > Dev > > -------------- > Dev Anand, MCSE,CCNA,A+ > Network Manager > Biomorphic VLSI, Inc. > Westlake Village, CA 91362 > dev_at_biomorphic_dot_com > pcpro_at_vcnet_dot_com > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%> 40list.ipswitch.com/ > > Knowledge Base/FAQ: > http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
