[Info-vax] hub better than switch?!

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote 2012-03-07 08:36:
> In article
> <d8fc7c70-0d91-4abe-a7a7-0326ec1ed0c1 at y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> John Wallace<johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
>
>> Carrier check failures aren't a good sign, but there aren't many of
>> them, and it's been a few days, and presumably you've been tinkering
>> with cables or interfaces or both?
>
> No, no tinkering!
>
>> I've lost track of what box/interface is configured with what
>> settings.
>
> It's an XP1000 but I don't know the settings.
>
>> I presume the above display isn't from an interface you are expecting
>> to be full duplex, right?
>
> Not sure.
>
> If there are dumber cards on the network, presumably this one can't be
> full duplex, or can it talk full duplex to one and not to another?
>

Full/half duplex is only rellevant for each point-to-point connection.
*IF* you are not using a hub, in which case there is no store-and-forward.

With a switch, different ports can have different duplex settings.
(Well, if it manageable so that duplex setting can be changed at all).

A non-manageable switch and a "dumb card" (whatever that is) could have
trouble takling to each other, depending in what "dumb" meens here.



>> My understanding was that with full duplex properly configured, you'd
>> not see things like "initially deferred" or indeed anything collision
>> related because the properly configured switch with full duplex at
>> both ends of a cable handles all that by magick.
>
> Some of what we see might be from the hub.
>
>> Zero the counters and come back in a day or so?
>
> OK, if there's time.  I'm really busy the next couple of weeks.
>