Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:54:51 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: all@biosys.net Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Message-ID: <4183.1009396491@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Dec 2001 14:17:21 -0500" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011226141409.00b02048@rfnj.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Please don't try to claim that this doesn't happen. It does - even with > >new equipment from well known manufacturers. > > I'll claim I've never seen it so long as I was using auto-negotiating > devices.. nics from linksys, 3com, intel and others.. switches and hubs > from the same three. Good for you. I (and my co-workers) haven't been nearly as lucky. > You (and Tom) have still both failed to address the question posed : What > about "dumb" devices such as unmanaged switches. My 16port > auto-negotiating 10/100 switch has no way *at all* of setting the duplex > *or* speed of the ports.. are you stating that such devices (and there are > tons of them) won't work if you force the NIC to a certain speed/duplex > setting? The speed is not a problem. The duplex configuration is. What I (and I believe Tom) is saying is that if you have such a device, and you force the NIC connected to it to a certain duplex setting, it may work (both ends get the same duplex setting), or it may not. When it does *not* work, you have a duplex mismatch - which means that many packets will get through, but you'll have a significantly higher rate of errors than normal, in the form of late collisions etc. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4183.1009396491>