Brad Knowles wrote:
> Other than that, you should try swapping out as much hardware as
> you can -- the cards, the cables, etc If possible, you should
> also test with other computers (in case the problem is with one
> specific machine when it is running 5.0).
Swapping 5.0 out for 4.7
At 10:33 PM -0500 2002/12/04, Craig Reyenga wrote:
Unfortunately, I have no extra hardware available to me, so I can't
experiment with switches and whatnot. Also, wouldn't some sort
of software experimentation be more appropriate, considering that
my existing setup works _perfetcly_ in 4.7?
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Terry Lambert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christopher J
Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 19:32
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PR
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
>
> I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> cables. Can you connect the machines through a switch, and ensure
> that t
Joshua Goodall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:32:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
> >
> > I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> > c
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:32:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
>
> I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
> cables. Can you connect the machin
At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable:
I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over
cables. Can you connect the machines through a switch, and ensure
that they are hard-wired to 100Base-TX full d
Sure, I'm not sure what to tell you though. If you can tell me what info you
need,
then I'll find it for you. I sense a small game of chicken meets egg forming
here.
-Craig
- Original Message -
From: "Cliff L. Biffle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well...
> My Realtek card in my 5.0 workstation
On Monday 02 December 2002 12:09 pm, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Right on. I hope that you find something because right now it seems
> so hopeless. I'd have to say that this is the strangest problem that I've
> ever had with FreeBSD.
Well...
My Realtek card in my 5.0 workstation is fully capable of sat
Brad Knowles writes:
> At 3:32 PM -0700 2002/12/02, Cliff L. Biffle wrote:
>
> > One thing I've used in the past that improves Realtek throughput is forcing
> > the media type and duplex setting on both ends of the connection. Autodetect
> > in the 8139s seems to be unreliable at times.
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:55 AM -0500 2002/12/02, Craig Reyenga wrote:
>
> > I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> > transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> > get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
>
>
At 3:32 PM -0700 2002/12/02, Cliff L. Biffle wrote:
One thing I've used in the past that improves Realtek throughput is forcing
the media type and duplex setting on both ends of the connection. Autodetect
in the 8139s seems to be unreliable at times.
This is true for most 10/100 Base-T imp
On Monday 02 December 2002 03:05 am, Brad Knowles wrote:
> According to all the source modules I've read regarding RealTek
> cards, they're about the biggest pieces of hardware garbage that has
> ever been inflicted on the free/open community. However, a 3Com card
> should be a little better
At 12:55 AM -0500 2002/12/02, Craig Reyenga wrote:
I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
According to all the source modules I've r
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 13:11
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
On Monday 02 December 2002 10:47 am, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
> becau
On Monday 02 December 2002 10:47 am, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
> because I seem to be the lucky guy with the problem.
I'm actually on my way to the office now to set up a test scenario with our
5-current boxen. We've got a whole scad
Ok, I'm convinced. Clearly I'm the one that has to do the testing
because I seem to be the lucky guy with the problem. The super
weird thing about all of this is that cpu usage is very minimal
during transfers. The 905 card was weird too: it actually ran
at 8MB/sec for about 4 sec, then the kernel
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:18:34PM +0300, Igor Roboul wrote:
> Maybe this is _CABLE_?
oops :-( All works fine with 4-STABLE?
--
Igor Roboul, System administrator at Speech Technology Center
http://www.speechpro.com http://www.speechpro.ru
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:55:39AM -0500, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
Maybe this is _CABLE_?
--
Igor
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:15:22AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
> >
> > Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
> > reputation. Howev
Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
>
> Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
> reputation. However I have used them for some time, and they have
> behaved impeccably. I ha
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:27:34AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> [ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
>
Mmmm. I use these RTL cheapo nics. I accept the fact they have a bad
reputation. However I have used them for some time, and they have
behaved impeccably. I have noticed no change in throughpu
[ ... bad throughput on bad NICs ... ]
Nate Lawson wrote:
> > FWIW, the root cause is likely a result of something in the
> > last 8 months, which means log2(240)+1 = 8 compiles to find
> > the problem on your hardware; if, in the last 2.5 years,
> > which we know to be the case, it's log2(2.5*365
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Craig Reyenga wrote:
> > I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> > transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> > get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > I'd r
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_
> transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to
> get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages:
[ ... ]
> I'd really rather not play around with different versions of F
CTED]>
To: "Craig Reyenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 00:06
Subject: Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?
> Craig Reyenga wrote:
> > It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about
DP1.
&
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about DP1.
Well, you will have to back up to a version of the source code
before DP2 that didn't have the problem, perform a binary search
to find the exact delta that caused the problem, and examine the
code di
It worked fine in 4.7 and all previous versions, just DP2 dunno about DP1.
-Craig
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Craig Reyenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 23:
Craig Reyenga wrote:
> In a recent thread started by me, named "Network is crazy slow in DP2"
> I wrote that I'm getting substantially lower speeds than I should be
> over my 100mbit link (realtek 8139 on both sides).
DP1 have the problem?
4.7?
cvs diff DP2 DP1?
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send
29 matches
Mail list logo
