Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 00:55:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Xinwen Fu <xinwenfu@cs.tamu.edu>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: it is a lab environment 
In-Reply-To: <200305102353_MC3-1-385A-BC34@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0305110038170.16534-100000@unix.cs.tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1516
Lines: 36

Chuck,
>
> > The switching table is
> > messed up by the intense traffic, we believe. Other cheaper switches
> > (netgear fast esthernet switch FS108 ) have the same problem.
>
>   What do you mean by "intense traffic?"  Many switches will get
> confused if you fill their tables with a large number of different
> addresses.  Is someone maybe spoofing MAC addresses on your net?
> Or is the switch plugged into a larger switched network where it will
> see many different MAC addresses on the uplink port?

	By Intense traffic I mean that the traffic on one path through the
switch is a little more than 10mb/s.

	My testing enviroment is an isolated lab environment. I only use
4 ports and the uplink port is not used. Each of the 4 ports is
connected to one ethernet card. That is why I concluded that the
10mb/s traffic is intense since for the first 5 minutes the switch is a
switch and then becomes a hub.

	As I said, I used a little expensive swicth (also auto-sensing
dumb one) and solved the problem. That is why I concluded a very cheap
swicth (<$100) may be not good in some scenarios. Of course for household
use,
it is definitely a good choice.

Xinwen Fu
P.S. I only intend to provide some information and all my testing is for
a rigid academic objective.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/