what are "runts" packets ?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by PJML, Jul 17, 2003.

  1. PJML

    PJML Guest

    someone wrote:
    > 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.


    They're basically packets which arrived incomplete for
    some reason - usually they are too-short.
     
    PJML, Jul 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

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

    "someone" <> wrote in message
    news:bf6dj4$o53$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Mabrouk@belateche, Jul 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PJML

    someone Guest

    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.
     
    someone, Jul 17, 2003
    #3
  4. PJML

    John Agosta Guest

    I think that's "less than 64 bits"




    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bf6gs7$rlf$...
    > In article <3f16bfa6$>, PJML <>

    wrote:
    > :someone wrote:
    > :> I don't know what "runts" packets are, can somebody help me ?
    >
    > :They're basically packets which arrived incomplete for
    > :some reason - usually they are too-short.
    >
    > runts are always (not just 'usually') too short. In ethernet, < 512 bits.
    > In ethernet if they make it to 512 bits then if they are not well-formed
    > they start counting as FCS Align errors (if it's not a multiple
    > of 8 bits) or FCS Errors (if it is a multiple of 8 bits.)
    >
    > In -some- contexts, 'runts' can include the partial packets that are
    > formed when a transmission is abandoned because a collision is
    > detected. My belief is that IOS's "show interface" runt count does NOT
    > [normally] include those partial packets. If you see a noticable
    > number of runts, you -probably- have a network problem; my first
    > guess would be that there is a failing NIC involved.
    > --
    > Strange but true: there are entire WWW pages devoted to listing
    > programs designed to obfuscate HTML.
     
    John Agosta, Jul 17, 2003
    #4
  5. PJML

    Rich Blum Guest

    "someone" <> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$>...
    > 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 ?
    >

    Runt packets are packets that are less than the minimum packet
    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/WileyTitle/productCd-0471433012.html
     
    Rich Blum, Jul 17, 2003
    #5
  6. PJML

    liminas_LTU Guest

    "someone" <> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$>...
    > 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.


    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.
     
    liminas_LTU, Jul 17, 2003
    #6
  7. PJML

    Steve Guest

    "Runts" are packets smaller than 64k.

    "someone" <> wrote in message news:<bf6dj4$o53$>...
    > 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.
     
    Steve, Jul 17, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    Steve <> 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.
     
    Walter Roberson, Jul 17, 2003
    #8
  9. PJML

    Dave Pooser Guest

    In article <>, John Agosta
    <> wrote:

    > > runts are always (not just 'usually') too short. In ethernet, < 512 bits.


    > I think that's "less than 64 bits"


    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.
     
    Dave Pooser, Jul 17, 2003
    #9
  10. Wouldn't that be "millibyte?"

    * I couldn't resist *

    - Michael


    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bf7278$5vv$...
    > In article <>,
    > Steve <> 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.
     
    Michael T. Hall, Jul 18, 2003
    #10
  11. PJML

    John Agosta Guest

    "Dave Pooser" <> wrote in message
    news:170720031657025516%...
    > In article <>, John Agosta
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > runts are always (not just 'usually') too short. In ethernet, < 512

    bits.
    >
    > > I think that's "less than 64 bits"

    >
    > 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.
    >
    >

    That munchkin line was funny !
     
    John Agosta, Jul 18, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <D3GRa.76755$>,
    Michael T. Hall <> top-posted:
    |"Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    |news:bf7278$5vv$...
    |> In article <>,
    |> Steve <> 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
     
    Walter Roberson, Jul 18, 2003
    #12
  13. PJML

    CCIE8122 Guest

    > In article <>,
    > Steve <> wrote:
    > :"Runts" are packets smaller than 64k.
    >
    > Not unless the missing unit afterwards is the "microbyte".


    or millibyte, rather.

    kr
     
    CCIE8122, Jul 21, 2003
    #13
  14. PJML

    buzz27

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    a runt is a frame less than 64 bytes

    Basically the information isnt getting through,,,Causes are usually something due to bad cables, bad ports or bad nic card....usually fixing one of the 3 fix the issue....
     
    buzz27, Dec 26, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Walter Roberson

    Re: FCS and runts on FEC links

    Walter Roberson, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Walter Roberson
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Eric Goldsmith

    Re: FCS and runts on FEC links

    Eric Goldsmith, Jul 22, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    Eric Goldsmith
    Jul 22, 2003
  3. Michael

    Cause of Runts

    Michael, Jun 26, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    19,666
    dmcknigh
    Jun 28, 2004
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,299
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,768
Loading...

Share This Page