Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:53:27 +0100
From:      Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk>
To:        Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Kent Ketell <kketell@juniper.net>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: HP DL360-P4 slow network writes
Message-ID:  <4B6EF5DF6A59A5B8360B82B5@dog.dmpriest.net.uk>
In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEKDFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
References:  <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEKDFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--On 01 June 2005 00:37 -0700 Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> 
wrote:

> Hi Kent,
>
>   I think it's the Broadcom<->switch connection.  You said you changed
> switches - but I'm betting you just swapped in another Foundry.  We have
> had trouble with the Broadcom gig E adapters under WinXP and certain
> switches.
> Try swapping in a 3com or some such.  And certainly also try the system
> on a 100BaseT port as well.

FWIW - we've got a bunch of the DL360 G4's and found a very nasty problem 
with the way the onboard Broadcom reacted to our HP switches - by default 
we forced the NIC's to 100Mbit/FDX. This resulted in a system that could 
send 'small' packets fine (e.g. dns) - but bogged down on anything large 
[it'd work, but not fun getting about 6k/sec for some transfers).

After fiddling with the switch ports, putting the NIC's back to 
'auto-select' fixed it - which is ironic, as we have a bunch of Intel 
Pro1000's that need exactly the opposite to work properly [i.e. we _have_ 
to lock them at 100/FDX to work with the switches].

I love 'standards' :)

-Karl



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B6EF5DF6A59A5B8360B82B5>