Mac Pro EFI 1.5 -> Cisco RVS4000 Lat fix

Mac Technical Support
Just figured I would drop this here in case anyone else has the same setup as I do and runs into the problem.

Hardware
Mac Pro 2010 (http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC561LL/A?mco=MTg2OTUwMTk)
Cisco RVS4000 VPN (Switch http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9928/index.html)

Mac Pro EFI update (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1321) caused my latency to go way up. Before the patch to the firmware I was in the 72ms ping time range, after the update it was in the 6000's - 3000's.

Change the Mac's network settings from DHCP to DHCP with manual address and it's brought it back down to <=72ms

Currently there are no new patches for the Cisco RVS4000 switch that would address this issue.

Ender

Odd. I wonder if this would help latency issues with a wide variety of switches/routers.
possibly,although most people i know complaining about latency ONLY get it in wow after 4.x which means it's not router issues for them (or it'd be everything not just wow). but probably an ISP packet filtering issue.

most other reports of bad latency show up in traceroutes also identifying it's not router. in fact it's almost never the router in traceroutes, most show a .1ms hop like they are supposed to.
Yeah Omegal, that's where i started first with some trace routes and quickly found that something wasn't right with the way the mac was communicating to the router after the EFI update. Since the update focused around the NIC cards and such it was the first thing I tried and bam it worked. Didn't really dive into it too much more after I had it working again.

Ender
possibly,although most people i know complaining about latency ONLY get it in wow after 4.x which means it's not router issues for them (or it'd be everything not just wow). but probably an ISP packet filtering issue.

most other reports of bad latency show up in traceroutes also identifying it's not router. in fact it's almost never the router in traceroutes, most show a .1ms hop like they are supposed to.

True, although I have seen some traceroutes posted with very ugly latency at the router.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum