Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> @bob
> if you mean speed and duplex mode then here is the detail
I wanted to see it say it was full duplex and whatever speed it had
negotiated.
> Speed: 1000Mb/s
> Duplex: Full
That says that it has linked and negotiated okay. In problem cases
where auto-negotiati
On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 3:50:02 PM UTC+2, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> i am using wheezy 7.x and for some unknown reason my network speed drop down
> to 10MBPS.
> i can see anything in /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog related to the
> issue. when i restart the serve
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:25:14 +0500
Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> @Bzzz, cables are self made.
Then did you respect the wiring code of colors,
and what is the length of these?
--
BTW, why don't you have optical fiber in your building?
The last time I asked the property management company, they
:
> Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > i am using wheezy 7.x and for some unknown reason my network speed drop
> > down to 10MBPS.
> > i can see anything in /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog related to
> the
> > issue. when i restart the server it back to normal an
Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> i am using wheezy 7.x and for some unknown reason my network speed drop
> down to 10MBPS.
> i can see anything in /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog related to the
> issue. when i restart the server it back to normal and shows above 50MBPS
> while tr
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:44:39 +0500
Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> i am using wheezy 7.x and for some unknown reason my network speed
> drop down to 10MBPS.
> i can see anything in /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog
> related to the issue. when i restart the server it back to normal
i am using wheezy 7.x and for some unknown reason my network speed drop
down to 10MBPS.
i can see anything in /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog related to the
issue. when i restart the server it back to normal and shows above 50MBPS
while transferring file.
any idea what is happening .
Thanks
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:30:42 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
(...)
> Still friends?
But of course :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.deb
On Du, 05 feb 12, 18:30:42, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Not all do. Some do. And the reason is that I'm a stickler for
> technical correctness, I guess, and I don't like seeing misinformation
> spread across the web. Yes, I'm a one man internet correctness police
> force. I stay really busy. ;)
On 2/5/2012 2:33 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> It's okay, Stan. I don't know why most of the replies in this list end
> this way with you.
Not all do. Some do. And the reason is that I'm a stickler for
technical correctness, I guess, and I don't like seeing misinformation
spread across the web. Yes,
On 2/5/2012 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> You have a fundamental misunderstanding induced EMI/RFI. The source of
>> the interference must be relatively close, physically, to the cable, in
>> order for the cable to pick up sufficient noise to interfere with
>> signals. A
Stan writes:
> True, single mode vs multi mode. But you still need
> qualified/experienced installers with the proper tools to do the
> terminations.
As far as I know most use cables cut to length and terminated at the
factory for in-building runs (though it is certainly possible to do it
in the
On 2/4/2012 7:22 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> Fiber is another different thing. We do also have it installed since the
>> last summer (4 FTTH lines, a 16-fibers cable) but working with the fiber
>> can be only done by certified installers and the required tools are very
>> expensi
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:39:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 12:25 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>>
>>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors
etc with horrific EMI levels, fiber
On 2/4/2012 12:25 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors etc
>>> with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6. With EFI
>>> levels that high, ev
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:44:32 -0800, owens wrote:
(...)
> Are we in an "apples and oranges" debate here? Camaleon continues to
> refer to FTTH for her examples which by nature are controlled by the
> PTTs or Telecommunications providers, while Stan and others use
> intra-data center and intra-LAN
- Original Message -
From: Camaleón
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: 2/5/2012 11:04:50 AM
Subject: Re: My network speed is only 10MB
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:50:48 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> You never know wha
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Induced currents in poorly wired power-line grounding probably effect
> you more if you're using shielded cable connected to that same
> grounding.
You should not ground the shield at both ends.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debia
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding induced EMI/RFI. The source of
the interference must be relatively close, physically, to the cable, in
order for the cable to pick up sufficient noise to interfere with
signals. A power plant, or even a Tesla coil, in the building nex
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:50:48 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> You never know what kind of company is going to be installed next to
>> your garden, right? So one day you open the door and find a power plant
>> is your brand-new neighbor. At the time you
[No Subject]
Hide Details
FROM:
* D.G. Gómez
TO:
* debian-user@lists.debian.org
Message flagged
Sunday, 5 February 2012 10:28 AM
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturi
Camaleón wrote:
> Fiber is another different thing. We do also have it installed since the
> last summer (4 FTTH lines, a 16-fibers cable) but working with the fiber
> can be only done by certified installers and the required tools are very
> expensive, not every company can afford that.
The lo
On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:47:16 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/2012 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> No, I can't see why is not that popular within the US, there are many
>>> advantadges for having shielded cables because external interferences -
>>> th
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors etc
>> with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6. With EFI
>> levels that high, even STP won't save you.
>
> STP can make thing
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors
> etc with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6.
> With EFI levels that high, even STP won't save you.
STP can make things worse as almost nobody knows how to terminate
shields in such a
On 2/4/2012 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> No, I can't see why is not that popular within the US, there are many
> advantadges for having shielded cables because external interferences -
> that are not always under your control- still apply (e.g., wireless
> connections, proximity to high power line
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:40:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 8:11 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> Nobody uses shielded twisted pair cabling these days, not for quite
>>> some time. There is almost zero benefit. And if not installed
On 2/2/2012 8:11 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Nobody uses shielded twisted pair cabling these days, not for quite some
>> time. There is almost zero benefit. And if not installed (grounded)
>> correctly the performance can be horrible, and/or
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 9:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> One of our company networks was installed from scratch on later 2005
>> and I made it Gigabit (STP Cat.6) but should I have now to do it again
>> I would consider in adding 10 Gigabit capabilities
On 2/1/2012 9:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> One of our company networks was installed from scratch on later 2005 and
> I made it Gigabit (STP Cat.6) but should I have now to do it again I
> would consider in adding 10 Gigabit capabilities, at least for the
> cabling (devices are still overpriced): i
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:48:23 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 11:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/fully-managed-switches/switch-modules/AX744.aspx
>>
>> Oh, I see...
>>
>> http://
On 1/31/2012 11:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/fully-managed-switches/switch-modules/AX744.aspx
>
> Oh, I see...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#10GBASE-CX4
>
> Never hea
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 10:15 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>>>
So I check NewEgg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168
On 1/30/2012 10:15 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>>
>>> So I check NewEgg:
>>>
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392 10Gb/s:
>>>
>>> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And th
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>
>> So I check NewEgg:
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392 10Gb/s:
>>
>> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And that's the cheapest one!
>
> You're either a mor
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:15 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ethernet at 100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s
> File copy at 10 MB/s = 80 Mb/s
>
> Ethernet at 1000 Mb/s = 125 MB/s
> File copy at 117 MB/s = 936 Mb/s
Thanks Stan, for all your explains.
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.so
On 1/22/2012 9:09 PM, T o n g wrote:
> Thanks again for everyone's follow up. Interesting discussion.
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:09:13 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> 9.9MB/s (megabyte/sec.) is roughly 80mb/s (megabit/sec) - fairly
>> reasonable for a 100baseT network card
>
> Oh, now I recal
On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
> So I check NewEgg:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392
> 10Gb/s:
>
> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And that's the cheapest one!
You're either a moron or a troll. Which is it?
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
hvw59601 wrote:
> Very interesting. So I measured... 11MB/s. Ethtool says card
> (onboard) can do 100Mb/s. So quite good.
>
> I think: get a faster card and put that in... :-)
>
> So I check NewEgg:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392
> 10Gb/s:
>
> Check that pri
T o n g wrote:
Hi,
I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
better. So,
- How can tell if my network cards can do better than 10MB?
- What's the most probable reason for the slow network speed? I.e., which
is a good order that I check for the problem?
On 1/21/2012 9:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> T o n g wrote:
>
>> FYI, this is how I tested,
>>
>> Measuring Network Speeds with Netcat and Dd
>> http://jbowes.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/measuring-network-speeds-with-
>> netcat-and-dd/
>>
>> Here is my output:
>>
>> 512+0 records in
>> 512+0 rec
T o n g wrote:
FYI, this is how I tested,
Measuring Network Speeds with Netcat and Dd
http://jbowes.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/measuring-network-speeds-with-
netcat-and-dd/
Here is my output:
512+0 records in
512+0 records out
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 54.4971 s, 9.9 MB/s
9.9MB/s
On 1/21/2012 12:42 PM, T o n g wrote:
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
> better. So,
How did you test, with what software? Also:
MB = MegaBytes
mb = megabits
Assuming you mean 10MB/s then you probably have a 100FDX ethernet NIC,
switch, o
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:49:15 +0500, Syed Hasan Atizaz wrote:
> well 10MB is quite good, things that could affect your network speed
> could be firewall, iptables, router itself plus the cables, i mean no
> matter if you have cat 6 connected at one end and . . .
Thanks for everybody&
Hello,
T o n g a écrit :
>
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB.
10 MB is not a speed. It is a quantity, a volume of data. Also, "B" is
ambiguous : is it bit or byte ? A speed would be expressed in bit/s or
byte/s.
> - How can tell if my network cards can
T o n g wrote:
Hi,
I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
better. So,
How did you test it?
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.or
well 10MB is quite good, things that could affect your network speed
could be firewall, iptables, router itself plus the cables, i mean no
matter if you have cat 6 connected at one end and on the other end its
a typical cat5, speed would vary sufficiently. look for auto neg
however it will hardly
T o n g wrote:
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
> better. So,
>
> - How can tell if my network cards can do better than 10MB?
> - What's the most probable reason for the slow network speed? I.e., which
> is a good order that
Thank you guys. I do not know why my mailbox did not show this thread.
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:16 AM, green wrote:
> Artur Frydel wrote at 2011-08-26 14:03 -0500:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > For some reason, I have a linux machine that has
Artur Frydel wrote at 2011-08-26 14:03 -0500:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > For some reason, I have a linux machine that has to have a network
> > bandwidth limitation for the whole system. So I looked into command
>
> That is why, because you using
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds
wrote:
> Hi,
> For some reason, I have a linux machine that has to have a network
> bandwidth limitation for the whole system. So I looked into command
That is why, because you using wrong filters. And limiting download on
single machine is n
Magicloud Magiclouds wrote at 2011-08-23 22:42 -0500:
> For some reason, I have a linux machine that has to have a network
> bandwidth limitation for the whole system. So I looked into command
> tc. And used this script from the internet.
> Well, the script returned successful, but in fact it d
Hi,
For some reason, I have a linux machine that has to have a network
bandwidth limitation for the whole system. So I looked into command
tc. And used this script from the internet.
Well, the script returned successful, but in fact it did not effect anything.
Could someone help me? Thanks.
er to me..
>
> What driver/version? "ethtool -i peth0" should tell that.
>
Also please paste offloading settings from dom0:
"ethtool -k peth0"
Thanks!
-- Pasi
>
> > cheers!
> > b
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM, virtualroot wrote:
009 at 2:19 PM, virtualroot wrote:
> > I'm getting a slow network speed (download/upload) domU and dom0
> > limits in 10kbps/20kbps.
> > Booting a kernel without Xen, this doesnt happens
> >
> > /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp
> > (network-script network-bridge
dd this to your /etc/network/interfaces, too..
>
> post-up ethtool -K eth0 tx off
>
>
> I also had to disable this in my dom0 for dhcp to work...
>
> cheers!
> b
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM, virtualroot wrote:
>> I'm getting a slow network spe
, 2009 at 2:19 PM, virtualroot wrote:
> I'm getting a slow network speed (download/upload) domU and dom0
> limits in 10kbps/20kbps.
> Booting a kernel without Xen, this doesnt happens
>
> /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp
> (network-script network-bridge)
> (vif-script vif-b
I'm getting a slow network speed (download/upload) domU and dom0
limits in 10kbps/20kbps.
Booting a kernel without Xen, this doesnt happens
/etc/xen/xend-config.sxp
(network-script network-bridge)
(vif-script vif-bridge)
(dom0-min-mem 196)
(dom0-cpus 0)
cat /etc/xen/XXX.cfg
kernel = &
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:54:33 +0100, Bob Hentges wrote:
>> Is there any way to get the eth0 cumulative network speed in clear text?
>>
>> Each GUI shows their own download speed. The xnetload can show overall
>> eth0 cumulative network speed. But how can I get it in clear t
On 1/13/07, ][ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way to get the eth0 cumulative network speed in clear text?
Each GUI shows their own download speed. The xnetload can show overall
eth0 cumulative network speed. But how can I get it in clear text?
I may not have totally unde
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 05:42:39PM +, ][ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way to get the eth0 cumulative network speed in clear text?
>
> Each GUI shows their own download speed. The xnetload can show overall
> eth0 cumulative network speed. But how can I get it in clear text?
Hi,
Is there any way to get the eth0 cumulative network speed in clear text?
Each GUI shows their own download speed. The xnetload can show overall
eth0 cumulative network speed. But how can I get it in clear text?
thanks
tong
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http
On Tuesday December 9 at 04:31pm
Ron Rademaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason I want this is because when I use BitTorrent it
> uses a lot of data traffic, something I don't want (because of the
> upload limit)
Check out the option for bittorrent:
--max_upload_rate kbytes
maxim
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 09:31, Ron Rademaker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a little network at home with 2 window$ workstations and 1 debian
> gateway / dns / dhcp server. My network speed is pretty high (both on upload
> and download), however I want to limit the upload speed (cause I
Ron Rademaker said on Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:31:24PM +0100:
> Hello,
>
> I have a little network at home with 2 window$ workstations and 1 debian
> gateway / dns / dhcp server. My network speed is pretty high (both on upload
> and download), however I want to limit the upload spee
Hello,
I have a little network at home with 2 window$ workstations and 1 debian
gateway / dns / dhcp server. My network speed is pretty high (both on upload
and download), however I want to limit the upload speed (cause I have a
upload limit). The reason I want this is because when I use
On Thursday 24 July 2003 16:00, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:48AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > >If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
> > >running at 100, then it could be full or half. If your network
> > >cables only have four l
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:48AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I?ve noticed that some of the most recent 100Mbit cards I've been buying (Genius
> low end cards, model GF100TXR4) have only four connection points on the RJ45
> slot. However, the cards *do* work at 100Mbits. Anybody with the
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 23:58, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:46:19AM -0400, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > > If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
> > > running at 100, then it could be full or half. If yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:46:19AM -0400, Mike Dresser wrote:
> > If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
> > running at 100, then it could be full or half. If your network cables
> > only have four leads connected, you're
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:48AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
> >running at 100, then it could be full or half. If your network
> >cables only have four leads connected, you're using 10.
>
> I?ve noticed that some of t
>If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
>running at 100, then it could be full or half. If your network cables
>only have four leads connected, you're using 10.
I´ve noticed that some of the most recent 100Mbit cards I've been buying (Genius
low end cards, model GF10
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Paul Johnson wrote:
> If it's running at 10Mbit, it will never be full duplex. If you're
> running at 100, then it could be full or half. If your network cables
> only have four leads connected, you're using 10.
Actually, you can have full duplex on 10BaseT.
100BaseT runs o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 07:44:13PM -0400, Dan Jones wrote:
> Is there a straightforward way to determine what speed (10 or 100mbs) a
> NIC is running? How about to determine if it is in half or full duplex
> mode?
If it's running at 10Mbit, it will n
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 07:44:13PM -0400, Dan Jones wrote:
> Is there a straightforward way to determine what speed (10 or 100mbs) a
> NIC is running? How about to determine if it is in half or full duplex
> mode?
racoon:~# apt-cache show mii-diag
Package: mii-diag
Priority: extra
Section: net
In
Is there a straightforward way to determine what speed (10 or 100mbs) a
NIC is running? How about to determine if it is in half or full duplex
mode?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.2 kernel running Sparc
with
SUN Happy Meal (hme) Ethernet card.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
-Original Message-
From: Dan Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:45 PM
To: Debian-User Mailing List
Subject: Network speed
Is there a straightforward way to determine wh
from 'man nfs':
"Here is an example from an /etc/fstab file from an NFS mount.
server:/usr/local/pub/pub nfs
rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr
Options
rsize=nThe number of bytes NFS uses when reading files from an
NFS
server. The
Hello,
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> rated at 100mb/s (or is it mB/s ??). All network cards are also rated
Sorry, I only pick out this line. According to the SI, 'm' stands for
'mini' or 'mili', so 'mb' stands for milibits, 1/10 of a bit. So a megabit
is 'Mb', 'MB' for megabyte. And
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010803 23:22]:
> | I've got (3) machines here at home, connected to one another via
> | a Linksys router/switch. It uses the switch for the LAN side and
> | it's rated at 100mb/s (or is it mB/s ??). All network cards are also
> | rated
>
> That's a little 'b' for bits.
On 03 Aug 2001 23:04:14 -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> I was wondering what real-world speeds are of a 100base-t network really
> are.
Not more than 7 megabytes per second. That's with high quality switches
patch cables and ethernet cards, though (tulip- based cards & CAT 5
wiring & Cisco Catalys
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:04:14PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
| I was wondering what real-world speeds are of a 100base-t network really
| are.
I've seen several hundred Kbytes downstream FTP transfer before (from
a remote internet site and I have no idea what the network
characteristics were be
I was wondering what real-world speeds are of a 100base-t network really
are.
I've got (3) machines here at home, connected to one another via a
Linksys router/switch. It uses the switch for the LAN side and it's
rated at 100mb/s (or is it mB/s ??). All network cards are also rated
for 100mb/s. Th
It was written:
__
I´m a network engineer for a living, and trust me, the only way to be
sure there won´t be something wrong with autodetection is to avoid it.
Setting speed and duplex on _both_ sides of an ethernet link
On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 17:20:47 EDT, Jeld The Dark Elf writes:
>On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 09:53:58PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote:
>> I?m a network engineer for a living, and trust me, the only way to be
>> sure there won?t be something wrong with autodetection is to avoid it.
>>
>> Setting speed and
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 09:53:58PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote:
> I?m a network engineer for a living, and trust me, the only way to be
> sure there won?t be something wrong with autodetection is to avoid it.
>
> Setting speed and duplex on _both_ sides of an ethernet link is a Good
> Thing. A
>On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 06:11:11PM +0300, virtanen wrote:
>> some of our computer engineers are telling me that my debian box
>> ('Potato') ethernet card should be fixed to a static speed (10,5). (Some
>> others are telling just the opposite...)
I´m a network engineer for a living, and trust me
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 06:11:11PM +0300, virtanen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> some of our computer engineers are telling me that my debian box
> ('Potato') ethernet card should be fixed to a static speed (10,5). (Some
> others are telling just the opposite...)
>
> How to do it?
> Where is the configur
downloading, or your class C IP banned.
- Original Message -
From: "virtanen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject: Network speed
>
> Hi,
>
> some of our computer engineers are telling me that my debian box
> ('Potat
Hi,
some of our computer engineers are telling me that my debian box
('Potato') ethernet card should be fixed to a static speed (10,5). (Some
others are telling just the opposite...)
How to do it?
Where is the configuration file for that?
Hannu Virtanen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
90 matches
Mail list logo
