On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:14:05AM -0800, Doug White wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Jos Backus wrote:
> Just because it's been "working forever" doesn't mean it can't fail.
Of course.
> Ever heard of power surges? Static discharge? I've seen a tx on a Compaq
> motherboard go kaput with no interv
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Jos Backus wrote:
> > If its a real hub, hubs aren't full duplex.
>
> Yeah, I know (believe it or not, but my job description says "Network
> Engineer" :-).
I don't make assumptions about titles and knowledge levels. :-)
> > If its a switch, the switch and PC might not have
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:44:35PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:47:45PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > Are you sure your kernel, /usr/include/sys, and netstat are all
> > up-to-date?
>
> I know mine are. What's odd in my case is that FreeBSD -> Windows works but
> generates
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:47:45PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> Are you sure your kernel, /usr/include/sys, and netstat are all
> up-to-date?
I know mine are. What's odd in my case is that FreeBSD -> Windows works but
generates many collisions (11 MB file xfer results in roughly 8000 collisions)
but
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:27:44PM +, Ceri Davies wrote: These
>probably are actual collisions though. The OP's point is that
>collisions are supposed to be impossible on a full duplex link,
>whereas in your situation they aren't.
The collision mechanism is used for flow control on full-duple
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:09:27PM -0800, Doug White wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Jos Backus wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:23:08PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > > Jos Backus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fwiw, I'm seeing the same with tx(4):
> > >
> > > Looks like a different problem.
> >
> > Pr
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:23:08PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > Jos Backus wrote:
> >
> > > Fwiw, I'm seeing the same with tx(4):
> >
> > Looks like a different problem.
>
> Probably. I was commenting on the (relatively) high collision count I'm
> seeing.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:23:08PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> Jos Backus wrote:
>
> > Fwiw, I'm seeing the same with tx(4):
>
> Looks like a different problem.
Probably. I was commenting on the (relatively) high collision count I'm
seeing. This is a hub (DSL router) with 2 PC's on it. I have n
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:14:36PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > The dc(4) driver is still reporting collisions on 100 Mbit full-duplex
> > links:
> [snip]
> > > netstat -i
> > NameMtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs
In the last episode (Nov 15), Andy Farkas said:
> The dc(4) driver is still reporting collisions on 100 Mbit full-duplex
> links:
> > ifconfig -a
> dc0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> inet 172.22.2.12 netmask 0xfff0 broadcast 172.22.2.15
> ether 00:00:e8:89:b9:66
> media: Etherne
Andy Farkas replies to himself:
> The dc(4) driver currently has an almost 1:1 ratio of packets:collisions.
> Your tx0 is quite low.
Ack! I can't count. Or my numerical recognition system is failing
NameMtu Network Address Ipkts IerrsOpkts Oerrs Coll
dc01500
Jos Backus wrote:
> Fwiw, I'm seeing the same with tx(4):
Looks like a different problem.
> lizzy:~% ifconfig tx0
> tx0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> inet 10.0.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255
> inet 10.0.0.10 netmask 0x broadcast 10.0.0.10
> ether 00:e0:29:09
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> The dc(4) driver is still reporting collisions on 100 Mbit full-duplex
> links:
[snip]
> > netstat -i
> NameMtu Network Address Ipkts IerrsOpkts Oerrs Coll
> dc01500 00:00:e8:89:b9:6626463 0
The dc(4) driver is still reporting collisions on 100 Mbit full-duplex
links:
> grep dc0 /var/run/dmesg.boot
dc0: port 0xd000-0xd0ff mem 0xfbfdf000-0xfbfdf0ff
irq 10 at device 6.0 on pci0
dc0: Ethernet address: 00:00:e8:89:b9:66
miibus0: on dc0
> ifconfig -a
dc0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
14 matches
Mail list logo
