why defaulting to 10 Mbps

I have a small home network where all of my machines are running at 100
Mbps except one. I thought that the one might be running slower because
I had it connected through a hub and a switch to the main switch, so I
bought a main switch with more ports thinking that connecting it
directly would allow it to go at 100 Mbps. Didn't help. I updated the
driver because there was something about the old driver defaulting to
10 Mbps, but that upgrade didn't help either. I can force the thing to
run at 100 Mbps in properties by changing from 'autosense' to 100 Mbps
full duplex, and it connects to the network and seemingly works OK. It
is an on-board Davicom 9102/A Fast Ethernet Adapter on a Soyo
Sy-P4I845PE motherboard. I wrote the company but of course they don't
respond. My questions:

1) Do I choose 100 full-duplex or half-duplex?
2) How do I know it is really running at 100 Mbps? Or does it say 100
when it is still really running at 10?
3) Does forcing 100 Mbps create a greater chance of data loss? Is there
an easy way to robustly test it other than just moving a few files
around?

Thanks,
IMF

It appears that NIC has a problem with the 100mb detection packet. Choose
100mb Full duplex. Just time the xfer 1 large 500MB file and do the math.

Well, I guess I should have done that before I went out and bought a
nice new switch, because now I feel pretty dumb.

The results: I took a 704 MB file and moved it several times in both
directions to a couple of different directories. At forced 100 Mbps
full duplex, it took 74-99 sec, for an average of about 88 sec, which
is 8 MBps or 64 Mbps. Obviously faster than 10 Mbps, but not 100 Mbps
and I guess you rarely get full bandwidth. If I change to autosense,
and the network status states clearly 10 Mbps, there is no difference.
Actually, it averaged a little faster at 83 sec. And another clue is
that the 10/100 light on the switch indicates it is running at 100.

So why does Win 2000 say it is running at 10 Mbps, when it is not?

Thanks,
IMF


TweetyB wrote:
> It appears that NIC has a problem with the 100mb detection packet.
Choose
> 100mb Full duplex. Just time the xfer 1 large 500MB file and do the
math.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
<snip>>
> So why does Win 2000 say it is running at 10 Mbps, when it is not?
>
<snip>

Arrogance?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

I don't get it. Wouldn't it be arrogant to say you are running at 100
when you are only at 10. It is almost overly humble to say you are 10
when you are actually. Or am I missing something?

IMF


CJT wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> <snip>>
> > So why does Win 2000 say it is running at 10 Mbps, when it is not?
> >
> <snip>
>
> Arrogance?
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I don't get it. Wouldn't it be arrogant to say you are running at 100
> when you are only at 10. It is almost overly humble to say you are 10
> when you are actually. Or am I missing something?
>

Microsoft's arrogance -- they can cause their software to say anything
they please, and who can stop them?

> IMF
>
>
> CJT wrote:
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>><snip>>
>>
>>>So why does Win 2000 say it is running at 10 Mbps, when it is not?
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Arrogance?
>>
>>--
>>The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
>>minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.