someone wrote:
They're basically packets which arrived incomplete for
some reason - usually they are too-short.

a packet smaller than 64 bytes, is considered as a runt packet and is
ignored as too small.

"someone" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:bf6dj4$o53$1@d03.completel.fr...

hello everybody,

I have a problem with a port on a cisco 2950 switch :

38062 packets input, 6125735 bytes
Received 26 broadcasts, 3412 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
3503 input errors, 56 CRC, 35 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
0 watchdog, 0 multicast


I don't know what "runts" packets are, can somebody help me ?

thanks in advance.

I think that's "less than 64 bits"




"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:bf6gs7$rlf$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...

"someone" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$1@d03.completel.fr>...
size (64 bytes for Ethernet). They often occur due to collisions on
the line. On switches the cause is usually a mis-matched duplex
problem (full on one end and half on the other) caused by bad
autodetection of a device. Try "hard coding" the duplex to either full
or half on one or both ends and see if the problem goes away. We have
had lots of issues with bad NIC cards and/or drivers that cause this.
Sometimes upgrading the NIC driver helps. Hope this helps solve your
problem.

Rich Blum - Author
"Network Performance Open Source Toolkit" (Wiley)
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...471433012.html

"someone" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$1@d03.completel.fr>...
Looks like you need to check cables (CRC, Frame, input indicates);
test it by Fluke2000, Agilent WireScope, ... to certify network
cabling. Cable become Cat5e only after certification, it's not enough
to only to by cables and parts that have Cat5e stamp.

"Runts" are packets smaller than 64k.

"someone" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$1@d03.completel.fr>...

In article <4242751d.0307171211.4205c74f@posting.google.com>,
Steve <sknorr@njm.com> wrote:
:"Runts" are packets smaller than 64k.

Not unless the missing unit afterwards is the "microbyte".
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton.

In article <gLKdne9qkbu1TYuiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com>, John Agosta
<j_agosta@wideopenwest.kom> wrote:

Nope, it's <64 bytes, which is the same thing as 512 bits. <64 bits
ouldn't even include source and destination MAC addresses. That
wouldn't be a runt, that would be a munchkin.

--
Bubba Dave Pooser

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

Wouldn't that be "millibyte?"

* I couldn't resist *

- Michael


"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:bf7278$5vv$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...

"Dave Pooser" <bubbadv@NOcyberrampSPAMDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
news:170720031657025516%bubbadv@NOcyberrampSPAMDOT net.invalid...

In article <D3GRa.76755$wk6.18156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
Michael T. Hall <michaelthall@comcast.net> top-posted:
|"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
|news:bf7278$5vv$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
|> In article <4242751d.0307171211.4205c74f@posting.google.com>,
|> Steve <sknorr@njm.com> wrote:
|> :"Runts" are packets smaller than 64k.

|> Not unless the missing unit afterwards is the "microbyte".

|Wouldn't that be "millibyte?"

|* I couldn't resist *

Okay, ya caught me.

Some, though, would insist that the proper unit would be "mibibyte",
symbol miB.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
--
History is a pile of debris -- Laurie Anderson

or millibyte, rather.

kr