From: Joel Soete <soete.joel@tiscali.be>
To: "M. Grabert" <xam@cs.ucc.ie>
Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] C110 builtin nic slow?
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:00:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FB7AD39.9010305@tiscali.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311152313340.16980@sal.ucc.ie>
M. Grabert wrote:
> Sorry to reply myself,
Don't worry, I do it also frequently (tired or not i need some more time
to test more stuff or find back more info ;) )
> but think I might need to clarify some points
> (I'm a little bit tired, so I have missed some things in my previous post)
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, M. Grabert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>So i will continue to see how to set it up in half-duplex (would it not
>>>be the default in 10BT?)
>
>
> Yes, usually it defaults to 10Mbit half-duplex and then (if the cards
> support it) it tries to negotiate better connections (full-duplex, 100Mbit ...)
>
>
>>Actually if one end point uses Full-Duplex and the other end uses
>>Half-Duplex, there should be no connection possible.
>
>
> This is true if the (forced full-duplex) network card test for full-duplex
> capable connection and doesn't find it. However most (cheap?) cards will
> skip the test for full-duplex if it was 'forced', and you can still connect.
>
> Light traffic will work, but you will have problems with large traffic.
> The explanation:
>
> The half-duplex side will send a packet, and assumes the other end stops
> sending if a collision occurs, ie. if the other side was sending something
> at the same time (CSMA/CD).
> The full-duplex side will however will always send/receive as fast as it
> can as it doesn't do CSMA/CD, ie. it doesn't care about collisions.
>
> The effect is that there will be a massive amount of collisions if both
> sides want to send data, and only the half-duplex card will try to resend
> the packets (causing even more collisions).
> You will see slow traffic when sending from half-duplex, and dropped
> packets when sending from full-duplex when both cards are sending.
>
> This will be most likely your problem, since it fits your description
> perfectly (forced full-duplex mode). Sorry, I overlooked that in
> my first post.
>
That explain perfectly the pb I encounter; thanks :)
>
>
>
>>The same for the situation when one side uses 10Mbit and the other is
>>set to explicitly use 100MBit.
>
>
> This will definitely never work.
>
>
>>The only situation where such a decreased network performance occurs
>>is IMHO that your have a cheap network equipment.
>>IE. a dodgy network cable that isn't properly shielded or doesn't use all
>>8 wires,
>
>
> I mean in the context for 10BaseT, ie. all 4 wires (1/2,3/6) are connected,
> but not the rest. There will be noise/crosstalk that will lead to
> collisions.
>
I check: all 8 wires are connected
> [...]
>
>
>>In this (worst case) scenario there will be a lot of packet drop on
>>the physical layer and the network cards will re-send the ethernet
>>packets autmatically (usually) without notifying you. You will see
>>decreased network performace as you mentioned it.
>
>
> The network card (only in half-duplex) will think it detects collisions
> due to noise/crosstalk and will automatically resend the packets without
> notification.
>
>
> Slan,
> Max
>
>
Thanks again,
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-16 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-10 11:10 [parisc-linux] C110 builtin nic slow? Joel Soete
2003-11-10 12:31 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-10 14:00 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-10 17:35 ` Grant Grundler
2003-11-11 12:54 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-12 3:22 ` Grant Grundler
2003-11-15 19:41 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-15 22:56 ` M. Grabert
2003-11-15 23:22 ` [parisc-linux] Dual NICs on 9000/715, anyone? buggz
2003-11-15 23:34 ` Matthew Wilcox
2003-11-15 23:50 ` buggz
2003-11-16 1:51 ` Grant Grundler
2003-11-16 4:16 ` Shane G. Brodie
2003-11-16 4:32 ` Grant Grundler
2003-11-15 23:58 ` [parisc-linux] C110 builtin nic slow? M. Grabert
2003-11-16 17:00 ` Joel Soete [this message]
2003-11-21 21:44 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-21 22:37 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-16 16:53 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-10 17:37 ` Grant Grundler
2003-11-10 19:23 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-10 20:38 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-11 1:31 ` M. Grabert
2003-11-11 11:45 ` Joel Soete
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-10-26 16:49 Joel Soete
2003-10-26 17:25 ` Grant Grundler
2003-10-26 20:40 ` Joel Soete
2003-10-26 21:10 ` Joel Soete
2003-10-27 19:39 ` Grant Grundler
2003-10-27 20:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2003-10-28 8:39 ` Joel Soete
2003-10-28 19:32 ` Joel Soete
2003-10-28 19:34 ` Matthew Wilcox
2003-10-29 6:43 ` Joel Soete
2003-11-10 4:36 ` Grant Grundler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3FB7AD39.9010305@tiscali.be \
--to=soete.joel@tiscali.be \
--cc=parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org \
--cc=xam@cs.ucc.ie \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox