On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being
reported on the public NIC for one of the servers. I'm not sure if it means
the switch or the NIC is the culprit, so not sure which component may need
to be
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being
the switch or the NIC is the culprit, so not sure which component may need
you should also check if the nic and switch are both running the
same speed, or if
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being
reported on the public NIC for one of the servers. I'm not sure if it means
the switch or the NIC is the culprit, so not sure which component may need
to be
collisions means half duplex
if you don't want them, do something like this with your fbsd box;
#in rc.conf
ifconfig_bge0=inet 192.168.141.90 netmask 255.255.255.0 media 100baseTX
mediaopt full-duplex
and your switch must be set on 100 fdx also.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 05:10:30PM +0200, L. Jankok wrote:
collisions means half duplex
you are absolutely right. the problem is that 3com and intel cards
are per default configured to auto neg. our server switches are
always set to 100fdx (company policy), and so these cards tend to
configure
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:38:04AM -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being
reported on the public NIC for one of the servers. I'm not sure if it means
the switch or
At 09:57 AM 3.31.2003 -0600, David Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:38:04AM -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions
being
reported on the public NIC for one of the
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack L. Stone wrote:
For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being
reported on the public NIC for one of the servers. I'm not sure if it means
the switch or the NIC is the culprit, so not sure which component may need
to be replaced.
Name
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:34:05AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
[...]
Also, I agree that the collisions are very small and were cached by the
switch, not lost necessarily. However, the sudden appearance over the past
2-3 days indicates a change that is not for the better and more concerned
