seting up two hubs

Peter <peter DeleteThis @nospam3333.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f4f800l85sbcd822h4bvap6v43htr8phu3@4ax.com...

 > Are there ever circumstances where replacing a hub with
 > a switch can make things not work, or work very slowly?

Yes, if the switch has a fault or gets its tiny little brain
scrambled with the automatic detection of one port config etc.

Switches are generally more intelligent than
hubs and can get it wrong because of that.

 > I did this, and now find that ping and tracert works over
 > the lan, but Computers Near Me (win2k) takes for ever,
 > minutes or longer, to locate the other machines...

Thats likely because the switch isnt broadcasting everything
it sees on all of its ports. Too smart for its own good there.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs 

Peter wrote:

 > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote
 >
 >
  >>Peter <peter.RemoveThis@nospam3333.co.uk> wrote in message
  >>news:f4f800l85sbcd822h4bvap6v43htr8phu3@4ax.com...
  >>
  >>
   >>>Are there ever circumstances where replacing a hub with
   >>>a switch can make things not work, or work very slowly?
  >>
  >>Yes, if the switch has a fault or gets its tiny little brain
  >>scrambled with the automatic detection of one port config etc.
  >>
  >>Switches are generally more intelligent than
  >>hubs and can get it wrong because of that.
  >>
  >>
   >>>I did this, and now find that ping and tracert works over
   >>>the lan, but Computers Near Me (win2k) takes for ever,
   >>>minutes or longer, to locate the other machines...
  >>
 >
 >
 > After a lot of messing about I think I found it:
 >
 > (1) one of the PCs had a subnet mask of 255.0.0.0 instead of
 > 255.255.255.0 - presumably this caused a huge amount of broadcasting?

I can imagine that might be a problem, although I don't think broadcasts
normally pass through routers, so I doubt they left your little part of
the world. I wouldn't be surprised if it confused Windows, though,
which wouldn't know whether it was dealing with a Class A or C network.

 >
 > (2) the hub was a 10mbit one, whereas the switch (new Linksys 10/100
 > auto sensing with auto MDIX) would go to 100mbits on those PCs whose
 > ports could do the same, and I didn't have "350MHz" cables on those;
 > the cables were "CAT5E" which I suspect is only 10base2.
 >

Cat5e should be more than adequate for 10/100, or even gigabit.

 > (3) The problem was compounded by the fact that none of the PCs will
 > switch between 10/100 except at power-up, whereas the switch appears
 > to do that at any time.
 >

I don't see why that would be a problem.

 >
  >>Thats likely because the switch isnt broadcasting everything
  >>it sees on all of its ports. Too smart for its own good there.
  >>
 >
 >
 > Can you give specific examples of this, and how they would be handled
 > by PC config changes?
 >
 >
 >
 > Peter.
 > --
 > Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
 > E-mail replies to peter4400.RemoveThis@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
 > Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs 

Peter wrote:

 > CJT <abujlehc.TakeThisOut@prodigy.net> wrote
 >
 >
   >>>(1) one of the PCs had a subnet mask of 255.0.0.0 instead of
   >>>255.255.255.0 - presumably this caused a huge amount of broadcasting?
  >>
  >>I can imagine that might be a problem, although I don't think broadcasts
  >>normally pass through routers, so I doubt they left your little part of
  >>the world. I wouldn't be surprised if it confused Windows, though,
  >>which wouldn't know whether it was dealing with a Class A or C network.
 >
 >
 > I don't think it was passing through the *switch* whereas with the hub
 > it worked OK.
 >

So does it work correctly now that you've reset the mask on the
offending machine?

 >
 > Peter.
 > --
 > Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
 > E-mail replies to peter4400.TakeThisOut@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
 > Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: seting up two hubs