[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Collisions on lan using Linux versus Windows



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 15 September 2002 06:46 am, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:15:47PM +0200, Roman Joost wrote:
> > > Can my local network perform better for my Linux systems. Or should
> > > I just forget about the collisions?
> >
> > I had the same problem, but i can't remember what i did. What did
> > "ifconfig" say
> > about collisions? Maybe this tool is rather up to date than the lamp.
> > There is a good networking monitor: iptraf. I use it for
> > monitoring the network.
>
> Thanks for the name of the tool. I have bookmarked its homepage
> should I ever need it. For my current situation I don't think I need
> it.
>
> Anyway, you snipped it but ifconfig shows close to 30000 collisions
> in the time it took to transfer a 80 Meg file.
>
> I have a feeling that it is perhaps a bit much, given that no other
> hosts are generating traffic (I removed their plugs for testing
> purposes). As far as I understand the physical part of networking
> (which I don't), it takes 30 packets or so before a collision
> occurs but only during heavy traffic (i.e. not when I am logged in
> working in a shell).
>
> I am using scp to transfer the file. I don't know how to generate a
> substantial data exchange between those hosts in another way. Would
> it be worthwile to create a server-client setup of sorts to move
> data?
>
> Bob

Greetings Bob:

My experience is similar.  I had new RT8139's that worked without error, but 
the one 8029 was terrible under Linux.  FWIW, I think that since the 8029 was 
a 10baseT Linux wasn't driving it correctly whereas the 8031's were 10/100 
and running in full duplex.  Since then, I keep a spare 8031 in my shack when 
I am going to do a net install.

My cable provider gave me a Motorola cable modem that also uses 10baseT (as 
reported by my LAN hub) and I can compare that port to the LAN port like this 
(ifconfig):

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:22:83:11:34
          RX packets:5285370 errors:1 dropped:2 overruns:1 frame:0
          TX packets:3269674 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:1982706 txqueuelen:100
          RX bytes:2328832259 (2.1 GiB)  TX bytes:269136175 (256.6 MiB)

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:22:83:11:2A
          RX packets:3718693 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:5076750 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
          RX bytes:301272139 (287.3 MiB)  TX bytes:2334008028 (2.1 GiB)
          Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1800

As you can see that is quite a disparity between the two ports on this 
gateway box.  I have not learned of a good way to fix this, but I haven't 
really been looking that hard.

- -- 

Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls\/A GNU-Debian linux user\/ http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls
If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. I SHOUT JUST FOR FUN.
Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9hK3nZHBxKsta6kMRAqX5AKCspz5yEu+JGDiae783uRntDyFzOACgzUHv
B+ymjmKnjHvmqyE0dlit5/c=
=wZth
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: