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.)

Steve Yuroff
Network and System Administrator
The Hiebing Group
Madison, WI.

On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:24 PM, Grein, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>       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
>       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.

Reply via email to