From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] tcp problems Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:50:37 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 685236e6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 We also used to test ect2 and elnk3 both wired to an old D-Link so = called switch. Auto negociation clearly was a big mess and we were = obliged to do it by hand. Further more we discovered that operations = became very slOooooow and finaly stated it came from the switch ASIC = since a more recent did not produce the same results. The switch got = killed, the ploblems (auto-nego / perfs) disapeared. Next time, we may = buy a Cisco 19xx or 29xx, those work for sure ! a crit dans le message = news:<20020316194329.7904519ABD@mail.cse.psu.edu>... > i'm sure i saw similar effects when i had a full-duplex link that one = side thought > was half-duplex (or conversely, a half-duplex link that one or both > treated as full-duplex); i'd always assumed the acks and other packets = were lost. > they could communicate but it got very slow. > i mention it because hardware-level autoconfiguration between > cards and switches often got messed up a few years ago. > i seem to have better luck with things now on 10/100meg, but perhaps = there's > still something not quite right with Gigabit ether kit's negotiation, = if you're > relying on that. or perhaps the driver isn't setting that quite = right. > probably nothing to do with your problems but i thought i'd mention it = just in case. >=20