-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:32, krepta at juno.com wrote: <> > So thats why the network sometimes just goes down, or parts of it anyway. > Signal collisions!!! Jeeze. :(
Well, collisions are not the sole source of network problems, but they are often a major one. > > (To the gurus: Yes, I know I'm ignoring Token Ring networks. > > Nobody cares > > about Token Ring anymore, so just shut up :) > > Is Token Ring better? If so, why aren't people useing it? For starters, Token Ring's maximum speed is 16 Mbps, compared to 100 Mbps being used in most Ethernet networks (and Ethernet has been pushed even higher then that). Token Ring's one redeaming quality is that collisions don't happen. Think of some of the old Native American tribes having a meeting, and they pass around a big stick or some other emblem. Only the person who has the big stick is allowed to talk. Likewise, Token Ring networks pass around a "token", and only the machine that has the token is allowed to talk. In contrast, Ethernet's meathod is to stick everyone in a room and everybody shouts at once (ignoring the effects of microsegmentation, of course). Personally, I've always had a problem with Token Ring. There is something about not talking whenever you bloody well feel like it that rubs me the wrong way. <> > What is a latinice? Do you mean Latency? I've noticed that word being > used on Network Games like X-wing Vs. Tie Fighter, but I didn't know what > it meant, other than signal speed or something. Latency is the ammount of time it takes for a packet to travel from one computer to be processed on another. The "ping" program is typically used to measure latency; it works by sending a packet from your computer to some other computer, at which point the other computer responds. It then figures out how long it was between sending the packet and receiving the response. Note that the lantency within a game is typically much higher then what you see from the "ping" program, as the game is also measuring how long it is taking for the *application* to respond, which adds a good ammount of extra processing power to the mix. <> > How about hooking in some kind of RAM that can be used as a buffer inside > a switch so that it will forward the data when a machine is ready to > recieve it? They do use a buffer. The exact size of the buffer will depend on how good ($$$) the switch is. <> > Yahoooo!!!! I would love to hook up a massive network of nothing but > switches, no hubs!!! But it still seems to me like there would be WAY > too many "Shared Resources" on a serverless network, even a > "microsegmented" one, to be any real use to any large organization. I > would still really like to put Freenet nodes into every PC to make the > entire network act like one massive server. You probably wouldn't want to use Freenet for that, since Freenet isn't designed with permenance of data in mind. You might want to do some reasearch on distributed file systems. <> > Would DHCP automatic IP addressing be able to work on a "microsegmented" > network just like on a HUB network? Yes. <> - -- A computer without COBOL is like cake without mustard. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjzCOcYACgkQqpueKcacfLRunACdGxcRq50jXctFxLH5vhQdkf3p RnMAmQGFLTMwYQ9GSme5vgDzOPc1f43O =GTQ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
