Troubleshooting Performance Forced vs Autonegotiate Switched Port
Users sitting behind a 16 port 10/100 Netgear switch report slow response or the inability to save documents to a file server attached to a 4006. The Netgear switch is attached to a port that was set forced 100 full. Pings timed out as the packet size increased and the switch port showed FCS, runts, etc. errors. We changed the switch port to autonegotiate and it reported back as a-100 and a-full. All the errors on the port went away and the performance improved greatly. What is the difference between forcing 100/full and having the switch report back that it autonegotiated 100/full? I thought the recommendation was to force if you knew both ends would support it.
Re: Troubleshooting Performance Forced vs Autonegotiate Switched
In order for auto to work it must be set to auto on both the Netgear switch and the 4006 . Seeing that you had hardcoded the 4006 and the the netgear box was trying to auto and could not , the default for the netgear box will then fall back to 100/half thus you have a duplex mismatch and you will get all kinds of errors and slow performance . If you had hardcoded the 4006 to 100/half it would have worked ok though not as good having it auto at 100/full .
Question We run asr9001 with XR 6.1.3, and we have a very long delay to
login w/ SSH 1 or 2 to the device compare to IOS device. After
investigation, the there is 1s delay between the client KEXDH_INIT and
the server (XR) KEXDH_REPLY. After debug ssh serv...
Introduction The purpose of this document is to demonstrate the Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) behavior when the V-bit (Virtual-link bit) is
present in a non-backbone area. The V-bit is signaled in Type-1 LSA only
if the router is the endpoint of one or ...
Hi, I am seeing quite a few issues with patch install and wanted to
share my experience and workaround to this. Login to admin via CLI, then
access root with the “shell” command Issue “df –h” and you’ll probably
see the following directory full or nearly ...