From: "Geo." 

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:cqrib0h6f9at177otfuhtt6i6t5bhs8b58{at}4ax.com...
> Their theory is that since I have another SQL Server box in the same
> VLAN as they moved this one to, and the other one does not have the
> problem, that if the problem doesn't go away now it must be in the box
> itself.  Does that make sense to you?

I would say that's a good test but no that doesn't really insure this is
the case. For example the cable that goes from the box to wherever is the
same. Also if the IP address never changed it could still be a IP based
issue (routing/switching) of some sort.


> All I know about our network is that when the servers talk to each other
> they only go through the "6509", which I gather is the big router or
> switch,

The 6509 is a catalyst switch from Cisco, I can mess one up in about 10 seconds
 If say a worm/virus that spoofs (like sql slammer worm) were to be on the
network connected to one of these switches, the switch would be constantly rebooting.

I don't think that's the case here but that switch would be something I
would look at if I were trouble shooting this pack loss/connection issue of
yours. It does sound like they know that since they mentioned it to you.

Take all this with a grain of salt, I hate switches. My opinion is switches
in their default config are far too fragile for todays networks and are for
people who are too lazy to use a real router. There are situations where
they make sense but most people plug them in and never bother to learn
about how to manage them. They also require constant patching:

 2004-03-30: Cisco Catalyst 3500 XL Remote Arbitrary Command Execution
Vulnerability
 2004-03-20: OpenSSH Buffer Mismanagement Vulnerabilities

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5