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 4.50) id 1EMlDx-0008W5-2B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:44:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j94BZh2n017996; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:35:43 GMT Received: from ptb-relay04.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j94BW44w019521 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:32:06 GMT Received: from [80.229.169.140] (helo=kenny.chepstow.djnauk.co.uk) by ptb-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1EMl9g-0008HV-3K for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:40:20 +0100 Received: from [10.0.0.10] (jonathan.chepstow.djnauk.co.uk [10.0.0.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kenny.chepstow.djnauk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4D489F0B for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:40:12 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <43426A1C.10609@djnauk.co.uk> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:40:12 +0100 From: Jonathan Wright User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050822) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Network collisions References: <43421316.4080304@daveoxley.co.uk> <5bdc1c8b0510040246o30d20c61lba2b5b95e727f2b3@mail.gmail.com> <434252A1.20400@daveoxley.co.uk> <4342566A.4070202@badapple.net> <43426603.9020307@daveoxley.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <43426603.9020307@daveoxley.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5c904995-9a48-4540-8001-d648e33c68fc X-Archives-Hash: 94c21b4bfbc31f663f427ce37e134eab Dave Oxley wrote: > Ah right. I did not know that! > > Yeah, its a hub. I'll stop trying to set it to full duplex now. I still > have a problem though, the collision rate is 11-12% when copying to the > client and the performance is terrible: > Copying from Server to Client (i.e. receive) 170.3Kb/sec > Copying from Client to Server (i.e. transmit) 7.383Mb/sec > > It is 40 times quicker in one direction than the other. Can you give me > a hint where to go from here. Some hubs don't like having different sets of ports and it's a repeater, not an 'intelligent' routing system. If you're going to try and set the cards to FD you may want to try disconnecting them all and connecting them all one at a time once you have forced the card to FD. Admitidly, I don't know why it would be faster one way than the other. I'm wondering if that's a cable issue (partially damaged cable causing a small capacitance effect). Do you get the same effect when you swap the cables over? -- Jonathan Wright ~ mail at djnauk.co.uk ~ www.djnauk.co.uk -- 2.6.12-gentoo-r6-djnauk-b2 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+ up 4 days, 3:12, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.36, 0.58 -- "Homosexuality is God's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children." ~ Sam Austin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list