@Phil-CommQuotes

Hey Phil, I'll keep you in mind when we're shopping / renegotiating next time around. I don't think we can do anything in the short-term because if memory serves we're under contract for that site. Right now my issue isn't the cost but the line quality, and from what we've learned, regardless of who's billing, it's all the same infrastructure for the optical service so jitter and latency is likely to be the same regardless of what we do.

WOOT WOOT!! this seems to have fixed things.

Now if I could just get a decent ISP connection in Knoxville...

• does an IP scanner (advanced IP scanner, angry IP scanner etc) find the .100 IP from one of the client boxes and see shares?
• does the MAC for the above scan match what's on the server (ie. do you have a duplicate IP on the network)
• is this something that was working and stopped or a new share that you can't get off the ground?

UPDATE:

Had a call with Fortigate support this AM and I'll be trying the following either later tonight or first thing tomorrow AM before anything important is happening on the network:

host-shortcut-mode {bi-directional | host-shortcut}
Due to NP6 internal packet buffer limitations, some offloaded packets received at a 10Gbps interface and destined for a 1Gbps interface can be dropped, reducing performance for TCP and IP tunnel traffic. If you experience this performance reduction, you can use the following command to disable offloading sessions passing from 10Gbps interfaces to 1Gbps interfaces:

config system npu

set host-shortcut-mode host-shortcut

end

Select host-shortcut to stop offloading TCP and IP tunnel packets passing from 10Gbps interfaces to 1Gbps interfaces. TCP and IP tunnel packets passing from 1Gbps interfaces to 10Gbps interfaces are still offloaded as normal.

If host-shortcut is set to the default bi-directional setting, packets in both directions are offloaded.

This option is only available if your FortiGate has 10G and 1G interfaces accelerated by NP6 processors.

RESOLVED:

Coincidentally the cert on the WSUS server expired yesterday, so we should be back to "normal" once a valid cert is in place

Since I'm a strong believer in the whole "Eat your own dog food" I'm seeing this on W10 1803 systems after applying the last round of updates.

Both systems I'm troubleshooting have the correct date, time and time zone. One of the other admins has the same thing happening on his machines, hoping to get a handle on this before it hits the users...

• WSUS is synced and using proper date, time, and timezone.
• I haven't seen it first-hand but am hearing reports that it's hitting some of our W7 installs as well.
• sfc /scannow states that it finds and fixes errors but doesn't resolve the issue.

Anyone else seeing this?

We've also got some systems that seem to be borking their NIC drivers, from what the 1st level guys are saying it seems to be Intel NICs on the Asus boards used in our CAD / design machines.

** knock on wood** nothing seems to be going wrong with the servers this time around

@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@NashBrydges said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@mlnews In other news, hundreds are dead after a Japanese bullet train derailed and collided with a mountain at 248mph.

Damn! That took a dark turn rather quickly

I would probably trust a Japanese bullet train over an American one, but that's really fast for traveling on a couple of iron rails.

Uhm, isn't a high speed bullet train designed to ride on repulsive magnetic lift technology, not rails?

@Pete-S said in VPN File Transfer Problems:

Just as an example I had a problem with one VPN link that turned out to be a LACP problem on the switch.

Do you recall what the LACP issue was? It's in-play in a couple of points along the path in the data-center.

Appreciate the insights and advice, but just to be clear, my main point of concern is that I can get up to 10x the speed traversing the same VPN / ISP and network infrastructure when the server is on a 1G copper link in the data center as opposed to when the server is on a 10G fiber link in the data center. I'm fine with disparity from site to site and it's of course to be expected given different ISPs, network conditions and workloads at the different locations.

I've done some iperf based testing on the issue already and have shown that raw wan speeds are acceptable and that I can get substantially more speed on iperf than with file transfer. I've also have seen that iperf on windows is garbage, the speeds are nowhere near what I'm getting on as close as I can get to a like for like comparison with linux.

@valentina Being out of coffee on a Monday morning? sounds like hell