|
Re: [Networker] Compare Netoworker to other backup products
2005-10-29 04:55:06
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.
I beg to differ. I find it much more reliable to force everything to
100/FD. Auto-neg settings are the number one cause of slow and
intermttently failing backups in most of the environments I have worked
in, especially for Windows clients.
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
|
|
|
