Re: 96% packet loss on my network
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
>
> My ifconfig eth0 output on my laptop is the following:
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:98:04:55:3B
> inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255
> Mask:255:255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:2175 errors:0 dropped:192 overruns:0 frame:728
> TX packets:2590 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> Interrupt:3 Base address:0x300
>
> Here is the ifconfig eth0 output on my pc-server:
>
> etho Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:AA:D1:F6
> inet addr:192.168.1.254 Bcast:192.168.1.255
> Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:7 errors:34 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:34
> TX packets:48 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> Collisions:8
> Interrupt:11 Base address:0xfc00
>
> I get 96% packet loss. Both cards, the pcmcia and the pci,
> are fast ethernet cards.
>
> Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> >
> > > I just set up my network (laptop to desktop). I'm running linux on
> > > both.
> > >
> > > I pinged my desktop and it seems there is 96% packet loss there. Why
> > > would this be?
> >
> > <random guess>
> > Maybe an incorrect irq or an irq conflict?
> > </random guess>
> >
> > You may want to post the output of ifconfig.
> >
> > Good luck,
> > Brandon
> >
> > +--- ---+
> > | Brandon Mitchell bmitch@atdot.org http://bmitch.nws.net/ ICQ 30631197 |
> > | Throughout history, UNIX systems have regulary been broken into, beaten, |
> > | brutalized, corrupted, commandeered, compromised, and illegally fscked. |
> > | -- UNIX System Administration Handbook |
>
> --
> NatePuri
> Certified Law Student
> & Debian GNU/Linux Monk
> McGeorge School of Law
> publisher@ompages.com
> http://ompages.com
> Receive my PGP Public Key from http://www.pgp.com/
--
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
publisher@ompages.com
http://ompages.com
Receive my PGP Public Key from http://www.pgp.com/
Reply to: