<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
ethtool might help getting the Speed/Duplex settings for that interface
on the server: e.g. ethtool eth0<br>
<br>
-Azher<br>
<br>
Brandon Ewing wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20100624224633.GA21363@radiological.warningg.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is a strange issue that I have noticed on a 3560G that we have
deployed. We have two servers, on different ports, controlled by different
ASICs. Each port negotiates a 1000mb/s link, but I cannot get more than
11MB/s (88mb/s) of traffic between the two ports. I conducted the following
tests:
Transferring a 1GB file from one server to the other, written to /dev/null
Single transfer averaged 11.2MB/s
Performed two simultaneous transfers from one server to the other, written
to /dev/null. One transfer completed at 2MB/s, the other at 9.3MB/s. This
happens consistently, every test.
Performed two simultaneous transfers -- one between the two servers on the
switch, and one from another server off-switch to one of the servers. Both
transfers maxed out at 11MB/s
This doesn't appear to be a TCP windowing issue, due to the fact that
doubling the number of TCP sessions did not result in a net increase of
overall speed. It appears that any flow in between two ports can only reach
100mb/s.
Anyone have any idea where I can look to find the root cause?
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net">cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp</a>
archive at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/">http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body>
</html>