-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 16 September 2002 08:24 pm, Jeff wrote: > Bob Proulx, 2002-Sep-16 17:03 -0600: > > Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-16 14:19:34 -0700]: > > > Robert Ian Smit, 2002-Sep-16 22:25 +0200: > > > > I suppose so. Is it still true that on a busy lan you only get 40% > > > > or less troughput? The guy who told me this years ago said that > > > > ethernet was dead and tokenring the thing to have since you're > > > > throughput would always be near 100%. Aesthetically ethernet was > > > > never a thing of beauty, but it's cheap and it works. > > > > > > On a busy Ethernet segment that's shared, not switched, it's more like > > > 60% throughput. The collisions and subsequent back-off routines > > > > But if you keep putting more and more talkers on the bus you will > > eventually see even more decay of performance. Because it is a > > collision detect and backoff process it is load dependent. Back in > > the days of coax we would meltdown to around 40% before things > > stabilized. I agree the 60% number is probably more typical of a > > badly loaded ethertwist lan. I have seen 65% considered normal. > > Good point. I now recall my time on a 1500 meter ThickNet segment > running 10MB/sec Ethernet. It was horrid! I seem to recall it ran at > about 50% with only 100 talkers. > > > > Token Ring is yet another example where it doesn't matter if the > > > technology is better. I think the "cheap and it works" is what did > > > the trick for Ethernet. > > > > Agreed. Also you might remember a 100VG protocol which was a > > collisionless protocol. It would give you sustainable bandwidth > > utilization regardless of load and the number of transceivers on the > > bus. But it could not compete with 100baseT being mostly a simple > > frequency push of 10baseT. I think the hardware was the same price. > > It just scared people that it used a slightly different technology > > than they were used to. Also for some reason it was only available on > > MS-Windows, where network performance was not considered critical, and > > not available for the longest time on unix servers where network > > performance was considered critical. Sigh. > > > > Bob > > I remember 100VG! I think HP came out with that and positioned it for > multimedia with it's low-latency characteristics. It sure sounded > cool! > > jc
Greetings: I have been following the thread with interest. I decided to do a test my LAN here while my bride was playing a game on her computer. I started a ping - -f session on her box with my Linux laptop, then started another one from my Linux desktop box. I didn't realize it would hamper her computer, but the computer actually stopped responding to her simple Mahjongg game! Her box is a 550MHz AMD k6 with 256Mb of RAM. It really seems odd. I can do the same thing to the old Linux gateway/firewall p75 with 32Mb RAM without any noticeable slow down. Guess it's time to try it on a win-xp box. . . . <shrug> tatah - -- Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls\/A GNU-Debian linux user\/ http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. I SHOUT JUST FOR FUN. Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9hr9vZHBxKsta6kMRApGBAJ9zMX49UsUm/v91qh/7xjaJbvbqOQCghPQK +lemdsJvC2qBY5xdm02H6dI= =TvPd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]