On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:33 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:31 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I switched the cable that came with the router for the Cat-6 I was
> > using when this problem arose originally, but without changing the
> > port.
> >
> > It's now running a
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:33 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote:
> And I am going to guess before the extra ethtool options being
> configured you found were inhibiting your previous tests.
Could be, but I still don't know where those options came from
originally.
poc
__
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:31 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I switched the cable that came with the router for the Cat-6 I was
> using when this problem arose originally, but without changing the
> port.
>
> It's now running at 1000Mbps. Clearly the (new) cable was at fault.
Good to hear. It
Patrick, glad to see you got your issue sorted out! I've experienced a
similar issue with network cables once or twice.
And now a word from the original poster... :-)
On 2/8/20 5:18 PM, Dave Ulrick wrote:
I've ordered a PCIE Gigabit Ethernet card in hopes that it will have a
chipset that isn
And I am going to guess before the extra ethtool options being
configured you found were inhibiting your previous tests.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:32 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:50 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> > 1000baseT uses all 4 pairs in the cable, while
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:50 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> 1000baseT uses all 4 pairs in the cable, while 100baseT uses 2 pairs, so
> this sounds like bad cable.
You're right, it was the cable. See my reply to Ed.
Thanks for your help.
poc
___
use
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 04:12 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-02-11 00:10, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > The key is
> > >
> > > Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
> > >
On 2020-02-11 00:10, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> The key is
>>
>> Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
>> 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
>>
>> The other side is telling that i
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 12:12, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > The key is
> >
> > Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
> > 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
> >
> > The other side is
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 22:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> The key is
>
> Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
> 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
>
> The other side is telling that it only supports 100Mb/s
Interesting. I have another m
On 2020-02-10 21:36, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 20:40 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 2020-02-10 20:14, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> So I changed that to turn autoneg on and speed to 1000, and rebooted.
>>> The system came up with no network, so I reverted the change. Clear
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 20:40 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-02-10 20:14, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > So I changed that to turn autoneg on and speed to 1000, and rebooted.
> > The system came up with no network, so I reverted the change. Clearly
> > that isn't the right way to do it.
> >
> >
On 2020-02-10 20:14, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> So I changed that to turn autoneg on and speed to 1000, and rebooted.
> The system came up with no network, so I reverted the change. Clearly
> that isn't the right way to do it.
>
> Recommendations are welcome.
Well, I use network manager and my n
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 14:12 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 23:39 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 08:05 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> > > Check components near the ethernet port for signs of damage.
> >
> > Though there's every chance that ther
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 23:39 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 08:05 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> > Check components near the ethernet port for signs of damage.
>
> Though there's every chance that there won't be any visible signs.
> Fried electronic parts don't have to be
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 08:05 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> Check components near the ethernet port for signs of damage.
Though there's every chance that there won't be any visible signs.
Fried electronic parts don't have to be charred.
I have to periodically replace ethernet switches, and/o
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 08:05 -0400, George N. White III wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 07:15, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2020-02-08 at 17:18 -0600, Dave Ulrick wrote:
> > > I think I've pinpointed a possible cause for my Ethernet slowdown.
> >
> > That's interesting, though as I s
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 07:15, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-08 at 17:18 -0600, Dave Ulrick wrote:
> > I think I've pinpointed a possible cause for my Ethernet slowdown.
>
> That's interesting, though as I said earlier I doubt it's the same
> problem I'm having.
>
> I'm getting a hig
On Sat, 2020-02-08 at 17:18 -0600, Dave Ulrick wrote:
> I think I've pinpointed a possible cause for my Ethernet slowdown.
That's interesting, though as I said earlier I doubt it's the same
problem I'm having.
I'm getting a high incidence (3%) of receive errors, which seems to
vary from one rebo
On 2/8/20 3:18 PM, Dave Ulrick wrote:
The first PC gets an iperf3 bitrate of ~ 870 Mbits/sec versus the second
PC's bitrate of ~ 940 Mbits/sec.
I've ordered a PCIE Gigabit Ethernet card in hopes that it will have a
chipset that isn't affected by this issue.
Now I'm curious what you are doing
On 2/3/20 9:26 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-02-04 11:11, Dave Ulrick wrote:
I am experiencing just one minor issue having to do with throughput on the PC's
built-in Ethernet interface:
Sounds as if it may be this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797232
I think I've pinpointed
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote:
> The right pin being bent on one end or the others port would cause
> 100mbit if the pin that is damaged is not one of the 2 pairs 100mbit
> needs.
Interesting. I'll have a look at that, thanks.
poc
__
The right pin being bent on one end or the others port would cause
100mbit if the pin that is damaged is not one of the 2 pairs 100mbit
needs.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 12:46 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > The only other way I know to chan
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 12:46 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote:
> The only other way I know to change the speed is with ethtool and/or
> setting something in the bios for the specific network card (see
> during post). I don't think gigabyte puts in the the normal bios,
> but I seem to remember there being
The only other way I know to change the speed is with ethtool and/or
setting something in the bios for the specific network card (see
during post). I don't think gigabyte puts in the the normal bios,
but I seem to remember there being 2-3 settings in the network card
bios including a cable length
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 08:14 -0600, Roger Heflin wrote:
> Just a cable between you and the switch? The speed is typically
> controlled by the hardware itself, and if the speed is not gbit then
> in my experience it has always been some sort of physical issue (bad
> cable, not quite plugged in, dam
Just a cable between you and the switch? The speed is typically
controlled by the hardware itself, and if the speed is not gbit then
in my experience it has always been some sort of physical issue (bad
cable, not quite plugged in, damaged, or poor punchdown on the jacks).
What kind of cable are
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 11:19 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> However my problem is the high error rate, which in practice slows down
> Internet connections dramatically. My ISP connection is rated at
> 80Mbps/20Mpbs and usually gets to within 90% of that, but a speed test
> directly to the ISP i
On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 22:15 -0600, Dave Ulrick wrote:
> The BZ looks somewhat similar to my issue--same chipset, etc.--but I
> notice a couple of differences:
>
> 1. I'm not seeing any errors on the interface:
>
> # ifconfig enp3s0
> enp3s0: flags=4163 mtu 1500
> inet 192.168.4.6 netm
On 2/3/20 7:11 PM, Dave Ulrick wrote:
If this is a Linux kernel issue, it would have to have been introduced
several kernel releases ago because if I boot into the PC's oldest
kernel, 5.4.10-100.fc30.x86_64, I still suffer from the slower outgoing
throughput. So, either this issue began with a
The BZ looks somewhat similar to my issue--same chipset, etc.--but I
notice a couple of differences:
1. I'm not seeing any errors on the interface:
# ifconfig enp3s0
enp3s0: flags=4163 mtu 1500
inet 192.168.4.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.4.255
inet6 fe80::7c0a:45
On 2020-02-04 11:11, Dave Ulrick wrote:
> I am experiencing just one minor issue having to do with throughput on the
> PC's built-in Ethernet interface:
Sounds as if it may be this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797232
--
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions
I'm running Fedora 30 on a somewhat older PC:
$ uname -a
Linux pc.localdomain 5.4.14-100.fc30.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jan 23 13:19:57
UTC 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I am experiencing just one minor issue having to do with throughput on
the PC's built-in Ethernet interface:
# lspci -v -s
33 matches
Mail list logo
