Ryan Novosielski wrote: > Chris Hoogendyk wrote: > >> Ryan Novosielski wrote: >> >>> I send this note every once in awhile, since I know around my workplace >>> there is a lot of confusion over it. >>> >>> Both ends of a network connection must be either hard-coded to the same >>> speed and duplex, or set to auto/auto. Any other combination will result >>> in the end that is set to auto stairstepping down from fastest to >>> slowest until it finds a comparable rate, and WILL use half duplex. So I >>> suppose to adjust my comments a little, if you are using 100/half on one >>> end and auto/auto on the other, that will work, but I'd say it's not a >>> great habit to get into (and who uses half duplex on anything other than >>> 10-base-T anyway?). >>> >>> Philip W. Dalrymple III wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Our problem turned out to be a network hardware problem, the port that the >>>> SD was plugged into was at 100 not 1000 and maybe the server was at 1000 >>>> or the >>>> duplex was not matched. >>>> >> We routinely hard code both servers and the ports they are connected to >> in our switches switches. >> >> In my experience, Solaris servers typically manage negotiating alright, >> but we set the switch ports anyway. Alpha servers notoriously messed up >> autonegotiation and had to be hard coded to work reasonably well. We >> also had repeated problems with Windows servers. I resolved it on a few >> occasions, but since I was not the Windows admin, it kept getting put >> back and causing trouble which was always blamed on the network group. >> >> Anytime there is a problem of this sort, check the switch port >> statistics, and check the configuration on the computer end and on the >> switch end. >> > > We used to do this, however we no longer do unless absolutely necessary. > The reason for this is it ultimately screws up network installs for > machines that do not have a nvram setting to hard-code the speed/duplex. > There are many network adapters (mostly on older machines, but we're not > talking THAT old) that can only use autonegotiate for network booting, > meaning you're doing an install over a very ratty connection. Same works > fine with both ends set to auto.
OK. We don't do net installs. So your situation is different. We handle ours on a case by case basis. So, if there were a machine that had problems, we would configure it as best fit that situation. I've found that the Solaris systems are robust enough that if the switch is fixed and the server is not, it will still find its way correctly to match the switch. But, we set them both fixed just to be sure. In either case, it is an issue that should always be checked whenever someone is having speed issues with a network connection. I've seen too many cases of finger pointing that could have been resolved without conflict or blame just by getting the switch and the server on the same page. --------------- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ ---- Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------- Erdös 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
