The correct answer was: use a Cat5 cable (see the original question below)
I was using the old crossed cable that I prepared myself.
Anyway, even if the link is running fine now, it seems that the same ftp session that at 10Mbit/s had a throughput of 290Kbit/s now runs at 500Kbit/s. I expected at least 2 or 3MB/s.
One of you, Tomasz M. Wolniewicz, says that he has a similar configuration running at 5MB/s.
I will post another question to the list as soon as I have a precise benchmark.
Jon Bidinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tim Carlson <email@example.com>
Birger A. Wathne <birger@Vest.Sdata.No>
Sean McInerney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Benjamin Cline <email@example.com>
Russ Poffenberger <poffen@San-Jose.ate.slb.com>
Mark - firstname.lastname@example.org
Russell David <email@example.com>
Vipin Gupta <Vipin.Gupta@blr.sni.de>
Tomasz Wolniewicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Aggelos P. Varvitsiotis <email@example.com>
Does anybody have experience with back-to-back TP network using 100Mbit/s interfaces?
It seems to me that this kind of connection can work only at 10Mbit/s.
I have here 2 machines that till yesterday were connected back-to-back through their 10Mbit/s Eth. interface. Never had problems.
Yesterday I mounted a FastEthernet SBus card on each of them.
Well, I can telnet from one to each other, but the link is really unstable. When I run a command like "ls -lR" during a telnet session, the output scrolls, then it hangs for several seconds, then it continues, etc.
I tried to run "ping -s <dest> 1400 100", and I had only 68% packets received !
Then I tryed to replace the TP crossed-cable with 2 normal TP cables + hub 10Mbit/s: everything works fine, but of course at 10Mbit/s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:12:04 CDT