Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270835AbTGVNEf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:04:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270836AbTGVNEf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:04:35 -0400 Received: from h80ad275c.async.vt.edu ([128.173.39.92]:10376 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270835AbTGVNEc (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:04:32 -0400 Message-Id: <200307221319.h6MDJVgf007961@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Matthew Hunter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.21, NFS v3, and 3com 920 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:42:45 CDT." <20030722054245.GA768@infodancer.org> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <20030722054245.GA768@infodancer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1363527824P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:19:31 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1745 Lines: 45 --==_Exmh_-1363527824P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:42:45 CDT, Matthew Hunter said: > Running more tests, it turns out the speed problem is isolated to > the one machine, and only to *receiving* data. Sending goes at > 8 M/s to other machines from the client machine. Sending from > any machine to the client machine is slowed down, not just from > the server. These symptoms sound suspiciously like a 100BaseT auto-negotiation problem. With some combinations of gear, if one end is set to auto-negotiate and the other end is nailed to full/half duplex (sorry, can't remember which and I've not my caffiene yet), things go horribly wrong and many packets dissapear silently on transmission, forcing retransmit timeouts and bad throughput. Basically, you end up with one end thinking it's full duplex, the other end at half - and if the full duplex side ever sends a packet while the half side is sending, the packet's lost. Try nailing the devices on both ends of the cat-5 to the same thing (full or half). This can of course be interesting if you have an unmanaged hub that doesn't give you a choice... --==_Exmh_-1363527824P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE/HTnicC3lWbTT17ARAo9bAJ90u3YG2oh0zDEWFz12wDXuuxz2iwCg96zU uQ7oey0YUUzQL4xvE5pEHVc= =LkK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1363527824P-- - 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/