Subject: Re: x86, current-20031102, vr0.
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Herb Peyerl <email@example.com>
Date: 11/07/2003 09:42:55
Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The old advice to "solve" duplex mismatch problems by hardwiring one or
> both ends may have been good advice at the time, but it's _really_ bad
> advice now, IME. Autonegotiation works -- use it.
So I set the vr0 and fxp0 machines to 'auto', then ran ttcp between the
# ttcp -r -s
ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001 tcp
ttcp-r: accept from .137
ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 1.75 real seconds = 9365.32 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 11578 I/O calls, msec/call = 0.15, calls/sec = 6618.14
ttcp-r: 0.0user 0.0sys 0:01real 2% 0i+0d 0maxrss 0+2pf 11573+0csw
# ttcp -s -t mail
ttcp-t: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001 tcp -> mail
ttcp-t: 16777216 bytes in 1.55 real seconds = 10570.01 KB/sec +++
ttcp-t: 2048 I/O calls, msec/call = 0.78, calls/sec = 1321.25
ttcp-t: -1.9user 0.0sys 0:01real 1% 0i+0d 0maxrss 0+2579pf 7530+0csw
So, you're right. What makes me curious is why neither end (the switch,
or the NetBSD hosts) were showing any interface errors, collisions, or
framing errors, or what have you.