I'd say that you might have a cabling problem. Try running a
most direct possible length of Cat-5, make sure that pins 1&2
and 3&6 are actually on pairs. See if that helps.
The other possible culprits are bad ports/chips or some aspect
of the usually half-duplex/full-duplex mismatch, though usually
that'd show "late collisions" rather than just FCS errors.
George
> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:06:40 -0500 (EST)
> From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Subject: [nsp] c1900 FCS errors
>
>
> One of our internal C1900s is generating a bunch of FCS errors on its
> 100Mbit B port:
>
> Catalyst 1900 - Port B Statistics Report
> Receive Statistics Transmit Statistics
> ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
> Total good frames 134549 Total frames 116033
> Total octets 93924939 Total octets 10939182
> Broadcast/multicast frames 1 Broadcast/multicast frames 692
> Broadcast/multicast octets 64 Broadcast/multicast octets 47891
> Good frames forwarded 134549 Deferrals 0
> Frames filtered 0 Single collisions 0
> Runt frames 435 Multiple collisions 0
> No buffer discards 0 Excessive collisions 0
> Queue full discards 0
> Errors: Errors:
> FCS errors 4185 Late collisions 0
> Alignment errors 0 Excessive deferrals 0
> Giant frames 11 Jabber errors 0
> Address violations 0 Other transmit errors 0
>
> ---
>
> This port is generating about 100-140 FCS errors per update interval (~1 sec)
> connected directly to a Sun Ultra @ 100MBit/s FD. The server is averaging
> about 10-20Mbit/s of traffic. Store and Forward was off, but then turned
> on after the Cisco site recommended using S&F to prevent FCS frames from
> being filtered.
>
> What is wrong (if anything)? there seems to be a consensus that high speed
> connects can draw FCS errors.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:07 EDT