From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E3XAb-00035a-3C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:53:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7CApSFY024244; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:51:28 GMT Received: from smtp2.iway.na (smtp2.iway.na [196.44.136.4]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7CAjQ3m023973 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:45:27 GMT Received: from vscan.iway.na ([196.44.136.13]) by smtp2.iway.na (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id IL3XZX02.3TD for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:45:33 +0000 Received: from mx2.iway.na ([196.44.136.13]) by vscan.iway.na (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id IL3V9D00.NNO for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:46:25 +0100 Received: from uwix.alt.na ([196.44.132.131]) by mx2.iway.na (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id IL3V9D03.5JQ for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:46:25 +0100 Received: from uwe by uwix.alt.na with local (Exim 4.50) id 1E3X1T-0003xT-T0 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:44:24 +0100 From: Uwe Thiem Organization: SysEx (Pty) Ltd. To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:44:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <200508112040.12288.uwix@iway.na> <20050811201302.7b391885@chi.speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <20050811201302.7b391885@chi.speakeasy.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508121144.23627.uwix@iway.na> Sender: Uwe Thiem X-Archives-Salt: 57d09d31-f8a3-48f7-9a00-c3ea69d56cce X-Archives-Hash: e298dc1b4d0fd6781a90bb2389cd4e9c On 12 August 2005 04:13, Bob Sanders wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 > > Uwe Thiem wrote: > > I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput > > but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? > > I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed > > some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly > > appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I > > would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) > > The long timeout before password is probably DNS not working the port > properly. Just a guess. Nope. Same behaviour when using IP addresses. > > Have you tried - scp, in both directions? Yes, did it now. Surprisingly it transfers data at 2xB/s both ways. Quite different from sftp. > > And which nfs? V3, V4? I suggest V4, if not. V3 is what nfsstat says. Hmm. I've enabled both, V3 and V4, server- and client-side. How do I force it to use V4? > > Have you run top and netstat -rn on both boxes to see what they think the > routing is? Routes are alright. Both boxes have a route to the class C network (192.168.254.0/24) they are using. Uwe -- 95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software developers. - Linus Torvalds http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list