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.