</RANT>
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but should'nt QOS management should be allocated
with edge devices, packets shifter and dynamic caches/proxies not by end
station operating systems....
anyone out there played with linux qos/bandwidth controls... has anyone
got real rsvp running (YUM!) ? I alway seem to remember the linux
networking faq, having most sections on qos missing. dunno about the
software.
here's the fact's...100/mb switch connection are cheap.
Server power is cheap.
Server networks card's are cheap
gigabit ether net works are comming online for normal people
WAN backbone links are so sloooooooooooooow and EXPENSIVE
WAN Equipment is expensive
ATM SUCKS! (no it really really does)
Clients are more reliable when the complexity is low.
so, who can guess where qos should fit into a real network? ;-).
Client applications should be able to request qos from
end network infrastructure devices. bu I don't think server software
should get involved too, too too too complex.... ah well. More
features..that's ms way.
and when I say real network, I mean real world network. qos on paper =
easy , qos on existing networks is hard!
server/client side packet schedules rareley works well, because of
layer 2 qos gurantee's, getting all those layers from 2-7 to aggree,
it's hard one, ah well...cisco will save us won't they? Only if their
running microsoft active directory...
I see dark days ahead..
ouch! ;-)
oh well, back to irradating myself with microwave radation and
trying to connect my XP home edition to domain... (grin)
Cheers,
Lee
<END RANT/>
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:52, Mark Sheppard wrote:
> Could be related to XP's QOS layer - check the nic properties and remove
> that component.
> IIRC XP reserves 20% of bandwidth for apps that require QOS.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nottingham@lists.lug.org.uk
> [mailto:owner-nottingham@lists.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Lee
> Sent: 22 July 2002 18:19
> To: nottingham@lists.lug.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [nottingham] Weird machine
>
>
> If your on the Universities LAN, then only god can help you I'm affraid.
>
> Things to look for, half/full duplex on your ethernet card.
>
> give us the output from i/f config. before and after the copy. on XP
> dunno, I'd say wipe it, ;-), and install windows 2000, but I can't say
> that, because XP is microsoft's brand new flag ship operating system,
> and I B E L I V E them....;-)
>
> try other clients see if it's a layer 7 problem.
> (win 95, win 98, etc etc) see if microsoft have disabled linux
> interoperablity again. ;-).
>
> I think you really need to provide more information about your machine.
> version numbers, kernel, samba version, an output from your dmesg might
> be nice, but you'll have to buy me beer to look at it ;-)...virtual beer
> perhaps.
>
> I had a similar problem, and found out it was a high number of error's
> being generated by a dodgey 10/mb shared hub.... oh dear...
>
> netstat -s also quite nice, if you know how to read da stats.
>
> so, here's some things to try before you break out the network
> sniffer...
>
> sniff..sniff.
>
> Laters.
> Lee
> 'Will fix networks for food'
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:02, Guangyue Liu wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > This might not be that Linux related but it does involve a Linux
> > machine :-) Sorry if you are not interested but here it is:
> >
> > I have a weird Duron 800MHz machine (with K7T turbo Limited Edition
> > mainboard, 10Gb harddisk and 256Mb RAM) running Windows XP. I also
> > have a small 100Mbps LAN. The server is a AMD Athlon 600MHz and
> > running Samba on Linux.
> >
> > But every time when i download some stuffs from the server it is
> > rediculously slow. I checked Task Manager and its only using 2-5% of
> > the bandwidth. Funny thing is that when i upload files to the server
> > it seems to be fine, 50%+ bandwidth were used. I used iperf to check
> > the connection and the result was ok. I even tried to transfer some
> > files from a different computer to the server and the speed was
> > reasonable. I copied some files on the dodgy machine locally and its
> > fine too. I checked that the network card had a up to date driver...
> > If i remember correctly i used to have a different NIC and had the
> > same problem.
> >
> > Any thoughts please, because i am dying to know why
> >
> > -guy-
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
> > http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
> http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
> http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed 24 Jul 2002 - 13:34:23 BST