Whilst I can't comment on the foibles of modern Cisco switches, I can
certainly say that Cisco switches I've used somewhat more recently than
fifteen years ago (but more than five) refused to autonegotiate to some
servers. So far they remain the only switches I've had to manually set the
speed and duplex on, AFAICR.
Given that experience, I can certainly see why people might enforce a
configuration for longer than might be necessary.
PK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michal" <mic...@sharescope.co.uk>
To: <misc@openbsd.org>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: HP Proliant DL385 with Squid at a Gigabit-switch - bad network
performance
Sorry but I worked for a very successful company in the UK that didn't use
auto neg's on Cisco switches and routers so I wouldn't call it evil AT
all,
please explain why manual is evil.
C
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of
Henning Brauer
Sent: 16 March 2009 13:29
To: OpenBSD
Subject: Re: HP Proliant DL385 with Squid at a Gigabit-switch - bad
network
performance
* Laurent CARON <lca...@unix-scripts.info> [2009-02-28 21:33]:
Steve Shockley wrote:
On 2/27/2009 8:43 AM, Laurent CARON wrote:
- Forcing speed on switch
- Forcing speed on nic
Why? This practice made sense when 10baseT gear from different vendors
wasn't compatible, but not for the last 15-20 years.
This practice still makes sense, at least with broadcom cards.
no, it is pure bullshit and the source of many many many errors.
just because cisco failed miserably in implementing autoneg for years.
even they managed now.
so stop spreading this bullshit. autoneg is good. manual is evil. that
simple.
I always do force the speed on servers.
this is extremely stupid.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
