<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: FTP issue in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772798#M583909</link>
    <description>First to prove whether or not it's a name resolution problem you need to ftp to the address and not say that your resolve.conf and nsswitch.conf are fine.&lt;BR /&gt;ftp joe.ws.net&lt;BR /&gt;ftp 10.11.12.13&lt;BR /&gt;is thru-put the same?&lt;BR /&gt;Next, is it only one server which is slow and the other normal speed?&lt;BR /&gt;I.E.&lt;BR /&gt;ftp from server 1 to server 2&lt;BR /&gt;get bigfile&lt;BR /&gt;ftp from server 2 to server 1&lt;BR /&gt;get bigfile&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;if they are both slow, then you have networking issues.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:24:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Shannon Petry</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-07-25T16:24:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772797#M583908</link>
      <description>Hi There:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Two Kclass boxes. Fddi cards. 11.0. 64 bit. ftp takes forever. No name resolution problem. dns entry first in resolv.conf and nsswitch.conf. both servers in same subnet. Please advice.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;Joe.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:19:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772797#M583908</guid>
      <dc:creator>joe_91</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-25T16:19:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772798#M583909</link>
      <description>First to prove whether or not it's a name resolution problem you need to ftp to the address and not say that your resolve.conf and nsswitch.conf are fine.&lt;BR /&gt;ftp joe.ws.net&lt;BR /&gt;ftp 10.11.12.13&lt;BR /&gt;is thru-put the same?&lt;BR /&gt;Next, is it only one server which is slow and the other normal speed?&lt;BR /&gt;I.E.&lt;BR /&gt;ftp from server 1 to server 2&lt;BR /&gt;get bigfile&lt;BR /&gt;ftp from server 2 to server 1&lt;BR /&gt;get bigfile&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;if they are both slow, then you have networking issues.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:24:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772798#M583909</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shannon Petry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-25T16:24:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772799#M583910</link>
      <description>I'm thinking that you have a bad fddi card. Here is a script that we use to check for fibre errors. You can probably modify it for fddi.&lt;BR /&gt;#!/bin/sh&lt;BR /&gt;for file in $(ioscan -kfnd fcT1_cntl | grep .dev.fcms | sed 's/ //g')&lt;BR /&gt;do&lt;BR /&gt;echo $file&lt;BR /&gt;fcmsutil $file stat&lt;BR /&gt;done&lt;BR /&gt;for file in $(ioscan -kfnd td | grep .dev.td | sed 's/ //g')&lt;BR /&gt;do&lt;BR /&gt;echo $file&lt;BR /&gt;fcmsutil $file stat&lt;BR /&gt;done&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With fddi, the side showing the errors is usually good and the next server over is the bad one.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I hope this makes sense.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:48:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772799#M583910</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rich Wright</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-25T16:48:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772800#M583911</link>
      <description>Hi:&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks. Should i add FDDI after the ioscan command in the script, please help me with that. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;Joe.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:23:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772800#M583911</guid>
      <dc:creator>joe_91</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-25T17:23:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772801#M583912</link>
      <description>i thought that fcmsutil was for fibre channel cards, not FDDI cards?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;there are HP-PB and HSC FDDI cards - which are in your K's?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;can you reproduce the slot data rate with netperf (&lt;A href="http://www.netperf.org)" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netperf.org)&lt;/A&gt; instead of FTP?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;what does netstat -p tcp look like before and after a transfer - better still, run the before and after through "beforeafter" from ftp.cup.hp.com and just show the deltas&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;if retransmissions are being show, what do the lanadmin stats (lanadmin -g mibstats &lt;PPA&gt;) look like for before/after the transfer&lt;/PPA&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:12:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772801#M583912</guid>
      <dc:creator>rick jones</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-26T17:12:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772802#M583913</link>
      <description>I may be talking out my a** as i am not familiar with FDDI, however, most slow transfer problem I have seen from two hosts on the same subnet (using TCP/IP) are improper duplex settings on one of the hosts.  I don't know if FDDI uses half/full duplexing though.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:37:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772802#M583913</guid>
      <dc:creator>Tom Danzig</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-26T19:37:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FTP issue</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772803#M583914</link>
      <description>FDDI doesn't really do full-duplex sorts of things - it is composed of dual counter-rotating rings. one ring is the primary ring - data comes-in on one side and goes back out the other, some is siphoned off to or put-on by the host. if there is a break somewhere the nodes on iether side of the break wrap the primary onto the secondary to keep a working ring going.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Now, if you had switched FDDI versus concentrators (hub-like devices for FDDI) and had the right sort of FDDI chips (DEC I think) and right sort of switch (DEC GigaSwitch IIRC), then if a single station were connected to the switch, it could indeed get connected in a full-duplex manner. I'm pretty sure that sort of stuff was rather more robust than the autoneg in 100BT appears to be.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:36:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/ftp-issue/m-p/2772803#M583914</guid>
      <dc:creator>rick jones</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-07-26T20:36:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

