|
Re: [Networker] Compare Netoworker to other backup products
2005-10-29 04:46:05
On Oct 29, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Oscar Olsson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ty Young wrote:
TY> I would say 98% is quite good.
TY>
TY> In my experience the Windows clients talk very nicely with
Windows or UNIX
TY> backup servers (NetWorker) and the failures I've seen with
clients are
TY> usually due to
TY>
TY> (a) client NICs left at auto-negotiate instead of being forced
100/full
Say what? Using anything else than auto-negotiation is stupid. Auto
negotiation has been a non-issue since the late 90s. However, I
have seen
plenty of examples where a clueless administrator has turned off
auto-negotiation on the client, but left auto negotiation on on the
switch. This ofcourse results in that the switch will regard the
port as
being in 100mbit/hdx mode, which will result in plenty of late
collisions
and really poor performance.
Please make yourself and the systems users a favour by using autoneg
everywhere.
My experience is the total opposite. As soon as we put a client with
a 100Mbps port to auto-negotiate, its a guarantee that it will cause
packet collisions and slow down backups to a crawl regardless of the
settings on the switch.. I think this has a lot to do with the type
of network fabric in the environment.
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type
"signoff networker" in the
body of the email. Please write to networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu
if you have any problems
wit this list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
|
|
|
