The problem is networking. (
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/12.html#bkg )
Cisco's policy to enable arbitration for all protocols. The first
protocols that etherswitches arbitrate for trunk and channeling, and
since the Sun NIC's don't, it cause the Sun NIC's to mistake the
trunking and channeling arbitration for 100Mbits, half duplex.
Our policy, is that only ports that are connected to other Cisco
equipment, are enable for trunk and channel arbitration, and all others
are set for 'host' mode. (ie: set port host m/p)
Forcing speed and duplexing also cause arbitration problem. Let both
end arbitrate for the maximum speed they can support. (ie: set port
speed m/p auto)
Darrel Hankerson wrote:
Gary Mills writes:
Is the packet loss the result of a duplex mismatch between the Sun Ray
and the cisco switch? That would be my guess.
Networking says "no" and certainly the Ray 1 reports "100 Mb/s Full"
(and we've tested multiple Ray 1 from multiple locations and switches).
I suspect it is not of interest, but the Ray 1 gives half duplex if
the Cisco switch is hardwired 100 Mb/s full.
Networking has had it's share of problems with Sun interfaces. The
old Sunswift 100 Mb/s S-bus interfaces (used in an Ultra-1 in our
case) were apparently well-known to fail negotiation (but they would
report failure; our Ray 1s report 100 Mb/s full). We had to force 100
Mb/s full on both ends with the sunswift card.
--
Darrel Hankerson
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://node1.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
begin:vcard
fn:Matthew Stier
n:Stier;Matthew
org:Fujitsu Network Communications;CAE
adr:Sixth Floor;;Two Blue Hill Plaza;Pearl River;NY;10965;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Principal Engineer
tel;work:845-731-2097
tel;fax:845-731-2011
tel;cell:845-893-0575
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://node1.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
