[Tfug] Need help on a server performance issue...

Tue Sep 28 08:34:31 MST 2010

Did you say this was a law office?  And I suspect they are putting all their docs at risk on this server not to mention work stoppage as you described.

All to save $1500 - $2000 every two or three years?

------------------------

Keith Smith

--- On Mon, 9/27/10, Jim March <1.jim.march at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jim March <1.jim.march at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tfug] Need help on a server performance issue...
To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 9:03 AM

Hey, when I first walked in, the "server" had 128megs of RAM and ran
Win98 :).  Seriously.  And that was three...maybe almost four years
ago now.

Wait.  It gets funnier yet.

So I get it running as a real server, Ubuntu, more RAM, new disks,
etc.  Ran for a year, then the motherboard died.  They were hard-down
at a really busy time.  Well a week earlier I had upgraded the
secretary's home computer, installed her new box, she just gave me the
old one.  So I run home, grab that, haul it in, swap the disks over,
boot it up, and THAT'S been their server for the last two+ years :).

So...huh.  Yeah, that might actually BE a damn hub.  That would
explain it, wouldn't it?  Crap...wait...dammit, there's one MORE
hub-like-thing in one office used to split out Ethernet to a printer.
I'd better check that too.

Hey, as craptastic as all this stuff is, it does run for a budget setup.

Jim

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:31 AM, b1nary g0d <b1naryg0d.ws at gmail.com> wrote:
> i have a few 10/100 hubs laying about oddly enough...so he could be using a
> hub...but i hope to --- he isnt..and meant swtich..but yeah...ammon..since
> hes using a P4 i think he is using hardware from 02 era or earlier....so its
> definitly plausible...n then it wouldnt matter how good his router is...few
> people on youtube and the fileserver..and the network would tank
> --B1naryG0d
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Ammon Lauritzen <allaryin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen a hub in production since like '02. Let us assume he
>> means switch.
>>
>> But a hub would explain the problems, it would force half duplex
>> collisiony nightmares.
>>
>> 10mbit / 6 clients * 1/2 duplex = 0.8mbit throughput == ~100kbytes/sec ;)
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Harry McGregor <micros at osef.org> wrote:
>> >  On 9/27/10 7:03 AM, Jim March wrote:
>> >> No, I have a router and a hub.  Every machine is getting DHCP off of a
>> >> quality router, but the router doesn't have enough physical ports.  So
>> >> one port off the router gets split eight ways at a dumb but powered
>> >> hub, which should be OK.
>> >>
>> > Where did you find a hub?
>> >
>> > There were a few 100mbit hubs, but not many.
>> >
>> > And even the cheapest 5 or 8 port devices today are switches.
>> >
>> >
>> >                        Harry
>> >
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:55 AM, b1nary g0d <b1naryg0d.ws at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> well keeping that in mind...he mentioned using a hub instead of a
>> >>> switch...any network tech will tell you thats a no-no unless you cant
>> >>> afford
>> >>> anything else
>> >>> --B1naryG0d
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Angus Scott-Fleming
>> >>> <angussf at geoapps.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2010 at 17:01, Jim March  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> So...I'm thinking I need to see if the Ethernet port in the server
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> going south, OR check for something on the local net dumping excess
>> >>>>> packets.  Been years since I've had to wrassle with something like
>> >>>>> this.  Do I use Wireshark or the like to check for something screwy?
>> >>>> Back in the day when I used to support a lot of Netware networks,
>> >>>> problems
>> >>>> like
>> >>>> this were often caused by 10/100 duplex mismatches caused by crappy
>> >>>> autonegociation between the switch and the server's network card.
>> >>>>  Usually
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> made the problem go away by forcing the server NIC (and the switch
>> >>>> port,
>> >>>> if we
>> >>>> had a manageable switch) to 100 mB Half Duplex.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, are you running Samba on Ubuntu, with Active Directory?
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Angus Scott-Fleming
>> >>>> GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
>> >>>> 1-520-290-5038
>> >>>> Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> >>>> Subscription Options:
>> >>>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> >>> Subscription Options:
>> >>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> >> Subscription Options:
>> >> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> > Subscription Options:
>> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ammon Lauritzen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> Subscription Options:
>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
Subscription Options:
http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20100928/2285f33a/attachment-0002.html>