-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Ryan Novosielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >>> Though there are probably 10-20 performance pitfalls, the two big problems >>> of >>> performance that I have seen are: >>> >>> - Poorly tuned Catalog database -- insertion of Bacula attributes in the >>> database tends to be slow. There are probably 5 or ten reasons leading to >>> poor DB performance. I'll be working on improving this and documenting it >>> over the next 6-9 months. A good part of what you can do is written in the >>> manual (Catalog Maintenance chapter). The rest appeared on this list within >>> the last month. >>> >>> - A switch (mostly 3Com switches in my experience) that run in half-duplex >>> mode, which slows network traffic down by about a factor of 10. >> Cisco does this just as often, if not more often. A little surprising to >> find that the top 2 can't seem to compete on the same level as a D-Link >> switch from Radio Shack. ;) > > If you read Cisco's docs, they make the claim that these problems are > per-spec. > > My understanding of the argument is that if you manually set the speed > and duplex, you have disabled auto-negotiation. If the other end > tries to auto-negotiate, it will be able to detect the speed, just by > dumb luck of how the protocol works, but it will _consistently_ mis- > detect the duplex, again because of dumb luck of the protocol
That's not the behavior I've seen however. THAT I understand, and if I'm not mistaken, it is per spec. However, what I've seen is many cases where I said to our telecomm staff "please leave that port at autonegotiate" and then hooked up equipment -- in my case, both Solaris and IRIX machines, and with no other change made to their configuration (both have autonegotiate as their default behavior), the machine negotiates to 100/Half. I can't 100% prove, as I do not have access to the routers, that the ports were set to auto, but I'm sure they know what they're doing. > Their argument seems to be that this behaviour is per the specs. If > a D-Link does it differently, then D-Link is doing it "wrong", even if > it's doing it more intuitively. > > If Cisco is correct, then it would seem as if the spec were written > poorly. I believe that they are, and I'd agree with that. It seems to me that it would try to be as aggressive as possible, but that is apparently not true. My problem is that the routers don't seem to work to spec either. If it were my job to work on switches/routers, I'd be peeved and take it up with them, but I don't currently have any experience with managed devices. - -- ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer III |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFK7wMmb+gadEcsb4RAryCAJ9AbA7RB+BjlACB/zvaJfZREurumgCeMDHl 8NBPKF9hQLQatwRyYek0vcc= =46Bk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
