On 16 Jun 2007, Mike Sandells wrote: > On 16 Jun, in message <4d55c97b4e36ead3f34e.rogerarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Roger Darlington <rogerarm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [snip] > >> Abysmally slow, just like mine :-( > > Apologies if this has already been covered, but what are the duplex > settings/status of the nslu2 box itself? > > If one end of a network conversation thinks duplexing is on, while the > other end thinks it is off, very slow performance is usually the result, > but often much slower in one direction of moving data than the other. > This seems to be the symptom you are seeing. > > Similarly, auto-negotiation of duplex tends to only work if both ends > are set to auto-negotiate (and even then can be twitchy). Generally its > best to nail everything in place to 100Mb full duplex, if possible. > > (10Mb was originally half-duplex only, 100Mb could be half or full, > while 1Gb networking can only be full duplex. The idea of full duplex > 10Mb was added later, so some devices that are 10Mb support it, while > some do not acknowledge that such an option exists. Full duplex, in this > context, just means the ability to talk and listen at the same time. If > one end wrongly expects the other to be able to do this, then it will > cheerfully talk while the other end is talking to it, and anything it > sends while data is coming in is effectively lost. It may then wait for > a reply before timing out and asking again, which might fail again for > the same reasons depending on what else is going on at the time.) I have no idea what the NSLU2 expects, but I tried all of the settings, 0 10 half and full; plus 0 100 half and full. On the eklink 0 10 settings, my PAE CE84 Router would not respond, preferring instead to make LanMan98 (or something else?) issue 'timed out resolving' errors. On eklink 0 100 settings, it went at 2.8MB/s for the first 22MB to 35MB transfers, then issued 'connection lost' errors, which seems to tie in with your guess that something is expecting something else. Trouble is, I tried all settings, so one of those settings MUST have been the one it was expecting, mustn't it?? Unless it, contrarily, changes it's mind when I guess the right one, and it then decides that the right one is the wrong one?? > > It might also be worthwhile looking at what is actually going on between > the nslu2 and the iyonix using something like WireShark (formerly > Ethereal) on the PC to capture the traffic between the two. That would > tell you whether there are large numbers of requests to re-send lost > data or large delays in response to requests. Hmmm...?? > > i.e. whether the network link is working hard but achieving little, or > whether it is idle for much of the time, with occasional bursts of > activity. There is a lot of hourglass activity when transfers are going at only 35KB/s, but nt when they are going 100 times faster at 2.8MB/s, but then it eventually loses connection after only 22-53 MB with a 'connection lost' error. > > It might also be worth setting up a share on the PC, and testing > performance to and from that. I have done that. results were reported here earlier, but I don't know how to quote e-mail numbers. Anyway, it was 100 times faster using a PC share; Iyo > LanMan98 > Router > PC > USB2 500GB NTFS drive got 2.8MB/s transfers. > > Mike -- Cheers Roger Bury Walkers http://burywalkers.members.beeb.net/ Atomic Software http://rogerdarlington.members.beeb.net/ Summer Winers http://rogerarm.freeuk.com/rogerarm/ Bury Hut http://buryhut.members.beeb.net/ Wild Flowers http://rdarlington.members.beeb.net/ Oh no! I've only just managed to get it all in of kilter. --- To alter your preferences or leave the group, visit //www.freelists.org/list/iyonix-support Other info via //www.freelists.org/webpage/iyonix-support