On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 04:40:42PM +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 22:40, Crystal Kolipe
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:33:16PM +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
> > > Fast ethernet (100base-T) uses pins 1, 2, 3 & 6
> [...]
> > But the output from ifconfig does suggest that
Hi,
I don't think my pf.conf will reveal the root of the problem because I
never changed it, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, here it is:
# $OpenBSD: pf.conf,v 1.55 2017/12/03 20:40:04 sthen Exp $
#
# See pf.conf(5) and /etc/examples/pf.conf
set skip on lo
block return # block stateless traffic
pass
On 2023-02-04, vitmau...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here are those outputs you guys requested. Those state mismatches on
> pfctl caught my attention, but I'm not sure about what they mean
> exactly. Thank you for the help.
It might help to show pf.conf then.
If you're allowing it to create state on inte
Hi,
there are two things that still bother me. First, how the Windows
machine was able to reach something around 30 MBytes/s of download
rate with the faulty cable. It reached this speed through Ookla's
Speedtest, though; maybe that is relevant information (don't really
know how those tests work).
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 22:40, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:33:16PM +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
> > Fast ethernet (100base-T) uses pins 1, 2, 3 & 6
[...]
> But the output from ifconfig does suggest that the link was running with
> 1000baseT modulation:
>
> > media: Ethernet aut
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:33:16PM +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
> Fast ethernet (100base-T) uses pins 1, 2, 3 & 6 while gigabit needs
> all eight. If you get a cable where one of 4, 5, 7 or 8 is broken (or
> someone cheaped out on the cable and it only has two pairs to begin
> with) you'll have a c
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 13:49, vitmau...@gmail.com wrote:
> thank you Stu for the feedback. Turns out the problem was one of the
> cables. It is advertised as 5E, but maybe there is something fishy
> with it. Fact is, I bought another, changed it, and now I got
> something around 95 MBytes/s of LAN
Hi,
thank you Stu for the feedback. Turns out the problem was one of the
cables. It is advertised as 5E, but maybe there is something fishy
with it. Fact is, I bought another, changed it, and now I got
something around 95 MBytes/s of LAN transfer rate.
Best,
Vitor
Em qui., 2 de fev. de 2023 às 1
On 2023-02-02, vitmau...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I'm having problems trying to improve my transfer speed over LAN. I
> can't consistently reach speeds over 10 MBytes/s using iPerf (real
> disk writing transfers with scp render basically the same results).
> Since both server (OpenBSD) a
Hello guys,
I'm having problems trying to improve my transfer speed over LAN. I
can't consistently reach speeds over 10 MBytes/s using iPerf (real
disk writing transfers with scp render basically the same results).
Since both server (OpenBSD) and client (Windows) are able to reach
speeds over 30 M
10 matches
Mail list logo
