You may be on to something, Randy. After repeating the identical speed decline on an
immediate duplicate from one remote client to another, then repeating it again during
an archive to tape, after moving the source machine to a different port, I was feeling
pretty confident the problem was in my backup server. I exchanged the Asante 10/100
card for a Farallon, and archived the same iMac to tape again. This time, instead of
failing with an error 519 after 5 hours of copying 1.2Gigs, it did a complete copy and
verify in 1h:11min.
While I never verified a port arbitration problem, i could easily believe that there
was one, and it was resloved with the new card.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I could backup my ASIP servers at full
speed on the old card. But if changing the card squashes the problem, I'm all for it.
Steve.
--
Steve Yuroff
Network and System Administrator
The Hiebing Group
Madison, WI.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:51 PM, Grein, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We've seen a lot of problems with ports 'flapping', especially when all
>sides are auto configured. Flapping may be an unofficial term although HP
>has been using it pretty freely to describe what happens when their switch
>ports go through mode arbitration after the initial connection arbitration.
>This is NOT supposed to happen, but the two devices can't always agree on
>the mode - full or half, 10 or 100. It doesn't show up on the idiot lights,
>and happens too quickly to view on management software - but if you lock
>both sides down the problem (almost always) goes away. FWIW, a 10/100 hub
>has a 2 port switch inside and each port can connect to the 10 or 100 side.
>I haven't seen the problem directly with one of these hubs, but it's
>theoretically possible. To be sure an old style hub on both the backup
>machine and source machine will rule this out.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Yuroff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 0.8 MB/min?
>
> 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.
>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
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.
