Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:05 -0600 From: "Jack L. Stone" <jackstone@sage-one.net> To: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>, FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interface collisions Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20030331103405.013e5298@sage-one.net> In-Reply-To: <20030331155711.GC61141@grumpy.dyndns.org> References: <20030331143804.GG322@ns1.webwarrior.net> <3.0.5.32.20030331082034.01414bf8@sage-one.net> <20030331143804.GG322@ns1.webwarrior.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:57 AM 3.31.2003 -0600, David Kelly wrote: >On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:38:04AM -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:20:34AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote: >> > For the first time within the past few days, I've noticed collisions being >> > reported on the public NIC for one of the servers. I'm not sure if it means >> > the switch or the NIC is the culprit, so not sure which component may need >> > to be replaced. >> > >> > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll >> > rl1 1500 <Link#2> 00:40:33:5b:bb:5f 6816063 0 7494432 0 >> > 66977 >[...] >> I'm lazy, I would replace the cable first. If that didn't work I'd suspect >> the $10 realtech card, and if that didn't work then I'd suspect a bad port on >> the switch. > >You would sweat over a number which says less than 1 in 100 packets sent >had to back off and requeue? No matter that "other machines with same >hardware/software don't accumulate collisions" I don't believe this >connection is broken. > >Others have suggested hard setting the data rate and duplex on the NIC. >That is not a bad idea, especially when using less than premium >hardware. > >Replacing the cable isn't a bad idea either. Often when a UTP cable is >wired incorrectly by not observing proper pairing of wires (honor the >Twisted Pair part of UTP) it mostly works but crosstalk between wire >pairs is more than it should. Enough to cause errors. I've seen machines >run for months wrongly wired until the position of the sun and moon are >finally unfavorable enough that the system falls off the net. > >The sad thing is that 3Com NIC's tend to work thru the bad wire while >everything else I have fails immediately. That's both good and bad. >Would like to turn off the 3Com's added ability for initial installation >then turn it on for production as extra margin for dependability. But >now that I know, I bring my laptop for debugging the connection. > >-- >David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net >===================================================================== I truly appreciate everyone's suggestions about this and the concensus appears to be that I will need to change the NIC from "autoselect" to a hard setting of "full duplex". The card is indeed inexpensive, not premium and after more than a year of use perhaps has begun to fail. Also, I agree that the collisions are very small and were cached by the switch, not lost necessarily. However, the sudden appearance over the past 2-3 days indicates a change that is not for the better and more concerned about the trend. Thanks again fellows.... Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Administrator SageOne Net http://www.sage-one.net jackstone@sage-one.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.20030331103405.013e5298>