For 100M setting 100/Full definitely is the way to go rather than autonegotiate.

However for Gigabit you don't usually get an option to turn off autonegotiate.  
 Are you saying you believe this is an issue for Gigabit as well?   We don't 
currently use that in our environment but it doesn't seem reasonable cards that 
only do autonegotiate would have the same problems as the earlier technology.

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces 
at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Clem Kruger (C)
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:20 AM
To: Collins, Glen (HQP); veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] clients in hosts files and forcing NICs to FULL


Hi All,

Just to add my bit. A common issue today is that there constantly
seems to be issues with 1GB networks. 

A NetBackup standard is that all cards do need to be set to full
duplex; hence the switch port also needs to be set to the same. As
Glen has suggested there is an issue sometimes on the switch side.
There is also an issue on copper wire. Cat 6 is recommended for 1GB,
there is then an issue of the bandwidth being overloaded.

It is better to combine a number of 100MB cards using CISCO trunking,
increasing the pipe size in that way.

I have also found that when using 1GB one should use fibre. There are
no issues as far as the network is concerned, just ensure you do not
overflow your bandwidth.
 
 
 
Regards,
 
 
 
Clem Kruger
'Plan, Plan, Plan - Train hard, expect the worst and you'll be
surprised at how you grow and what one's team can achieve.'
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of
Collins, Glen (HQP)
Sent: 12 April 2007 19:41 PM
To: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] clients in hosts files and forcing NICs to
FULL

As a former Sun SA, it was ALWAYS mandatory to lock speeds. Especially
when
Cisco was involved. Sun and Cisco hardware has always had issues with
auto negotiation. And when both vendors say it's the other's fault,
you just do
what's best for your environment. As for Windows, I'm not too clear on
that.
But if you never want to run into any issues, it's way best to lock
speeds
and duplex on BOTH sides. That way you can never go wrong.

Glen Collins
Storage Engineering Services
Robert Half International, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Keating
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:17 AM
To: Ian Clements; Adams, Dwayne; veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] clients in hosts files and forcing NICs to
FULL

We've had more problems in the old days with people "forgetting" to
hardcode, than we've had in recent years leaving everything auto.

However, on the recommendation to only hardcode the
client......absolutely NOT.
The standard behaviour (for one side hardcoded, and the other Auto) as
outlined by the IEEE is to go to HALF-duplex. 

NOT what you want.

Paul

-- 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf 
> Of Ian Clements
> Sent: April 12, 2007 1:14 PM
> To: Adams, Dwayne; veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] clients in hosts files and forcing 
> NICs to FULL
>  
> 
> By locking the speeds, you prevent the cards from negotiating. This
is
> both good and bad. Despite the 
> "standard" of autoneg, it doesn't always work. If you can use it,
you
> should. If you can't because clients
> do not correctly negotiate a connection speed, try locking 
> the client to
> 100-full (or whatever) and leaving 
> the switch port at auto first. 
======================================================================
==============

La version fran?aise suit le texte anglais.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and
the Bank of
Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or
copying of this
email or the information it contains by other than the intended
recipient is
unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it
immediately from
your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done
so. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

Le pr?sent courriel peut contenir de l'information privil?gi?e ou
confidentielle.
La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent.
Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il
contient par une
personne autre que le ou les destinataires d?sign?s est interdite. Si
vous recevez
ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer imm?diatement et envoyer
sans d?lai ?
l'exp?diteur un message ?lectronique pour l'aviser que vous avez
?limin? de votre
ordinateur toute copie du courriel re?u.

_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Telkom SA Limited
e-mail legal notice available at 
http://www.telkom.co.za/TelkomEMailLegalNotice.PDF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu