Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] I think this is outrageous, but am i wrong?
As long as all facing ports are set the same, there should be no degradation, truly the bottleneck is the 1.544 or 1.536 speed of the wan link.
Sometimes 10bt half settings will prevent clients from overrunning buffers on the equipment and causing packet loss.
You say the service degraded, try to pin it down to when and what changed. It may be loss in the cloud, monitoring some public address along with every piece of equipment internally should help you isolate the issue/errors/loss.
From: jack craig
<jcraig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Community support list for Wireshark <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 12:22:14 PM
Subject: [Wireshark-users] I think this is outrageous, but am i wrong?
Hi Wireshark Folks,
The below query is not Wireshark specific, just a basic networking
topic.
Pls hit delete if you dont care to read more.
I pose this query to this forum just because the collection of talent
here should vindicate or refute my own sanity.
pls consider this network topology?
a site has a T1 to the cloud. following that T1 into the domain, we
first encounter the T1 router,
then on to a firewall, and arriving finally at a 10/100 Mbps switch
where its distributed to internal users.
our access to the cloud has been degraded so we look for reasons why?
we find that the firewall is configured on both input/output sides to
be 10 Mbps, half duplex.
AFAIK, upgrading the firewall interfaces to 100 Mpbs/FDx would increase
the throughput by 10 times (ideally)
and enable bidirectional traffic (as opposed to limiting to a single
direction at once).
am i missing something obvious here? is there any reason a 10 Mbps/HDx
link is better than 100Mbps/FDx ??
tia, jackc...
--
Jack Craig
Software Engineer
831.461.7100 x120
www.extraview.com
