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 1EN76C-0004is-SF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:06:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j95AulWR011762; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:56:47 GMT Received: from daveoxley.co.uk (visp.inabox.net [203.49.196.250] (may be forged)) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j95Ap5g5004546 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:51:07 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.241] ([192.168.1.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by daveoxley.co.uk (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j95B1SJj004577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:01:44 +1000 Message-ID: <4343B1FD.6010908@daveoxley.co.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:59:09 +1000 From: Dave Oxley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050720) 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] Re: 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 564e8724-5b4c-4329-a936-807696364219 X-Archives-Hash: 1905b35a047ad1c04b19c4092db9e382 Ok, I've fixed the problem. I've plugged both systems into my router (which is a switch) and they are working fine now. There is obviously a bug in the 8139too driver. I'll have to live with the long cables going to the switch for the time being though!! Cheers for everyones help. Dave. James wrote: >Dave Oxley daveoxley.co.uk> writes: > > > > >>Yeah, its a hub. I'll stop trying to set it to full duplex now. >> >> > > > >>It is 40 times quicker in one direction than the other. Can you >>give me a hint where to go from here. >> >> > >Try connecting the 2 systems with only a 'cross-over cable' run the applications >and make measurements. If this results in an increase in the bandwidth >in either direction, you may want to put systems back on the hub, and >have a third system run ethereal. Look at your data traffic and see >if anythingelse is using the bandwidth from either of these 2 system >or what else is plug into the hub/switch. > >Is the hub a 10Mbps only hub/switch, check that. On 10 Mbps ethernet >hubs,you can never reach the full 10 Mbps, in fact with many systems >chattering,the practical throughput is marginally around 33%. > >If when you are on the cross over cable and you get similar poor >results,then the problem may be in the ethernet driver code, >kernel, irq settings or >some other low level part of the kernel/modules, especially if >you get the same skewed results with several different >applications moving data between the systems. But, if when > you move data between these 2 isolated system, and >get different bandwidth performance semantics, then the problem >is most likely between the applications or a bottleneck in the >application code (poor data structure for example). > >Make sure you computers are not resource limited, thus blocking >the processthat you are running to move the data. Top and ntop >are just a few toolsto help track down these sort of issues. > >Sadly, you may have a complex mix of part or all of these >aforementioned issues... > >hth, >James > > > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list