Re: Strange behaviour with gigabit ethernet
Hi,
i`ve not much idea about this, but i`d check if windows ethernet card
has aslo 1G speed. "FIFO overflow error" sound like somebody is pushing
more, then somebody else is able to receive.
Was speed of the copying Samba -> Windows realy 1G speed? Or just 100M?
If it was 1G speed, than you should have copied 1 000 000 000 b * 360 s
=360 000 000 000 b= 45 000 000 000 B= 45 GB.
If it was just 100M speed, than you have copied just 4,5GB.
Dexter
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 12:21 +0000, Andrew Ingram wrote:
> Hi List!
>
> I recently upgraded my home network to gigabit ethernet, replacing my old
> 10/100hub with a Netgear gigabit switch.
>
> I was doing some transfer speed experiements between my Linux machine and my
> windows machine, copying things to and from a samba share and I ran into some
> problems.
>
> Basically, copying FROM the samba share onto the windows box was like
> lightning, as expected. However, copying TO the samba share from the windows
> box was pathetic (something which took 6 minutes to transfer from the share
> was going to take 200minutes to put back!).
>
> I looked at dmesg and noticed lots of:
> eth1: -- ERROR --
> Class: Hardware failure
> Nr: 0x26f
> Msg: FIFO overflow error
>
> Does anyone know what this means?
>
> The box is a Sid box, running a Debian 2.6.12 kernel and the ethernet card is
> a (from lspci):
> Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c940 10/100/1000Base-T [Marvell]
> using the sk98lin kernel module.
>
> When the module is loaded on bootup, it ouputs:
> eth1: network connection up using port A
> speed: 1000
> autonegotiation: yes
> duplex mode: full
> flowctrl: symmetric
> role: master
> irq moderation: disabled
> scatter-gather: enabled
>
>
> I'm hoping that I just need to pass some extra parameters to the module, but
> any advice would be very welcome. I've tried googling but not found anything.
> One thing that has occurred to me just as I type this is that I am using some
> new cat 6 cable; could this error be caused by a bad cable?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
Reply to: