Rick Kunath wrote: > On Saturday 21 May 2005 10:40 am, Lee Wiggers wrote: > > >>A router is faster than a hub, and a very cheap interface to the >>internet connection at the same time. My SMC has 8 rj45, 1 WAN for >>the modem, and a parallel printer port for a network printer as >>well. >> > > > > A router is not faster than a hub. A router and a hub are two very different > pieces of networking equipment. > > A router "routes" traffic between networks. > > A hub shares traffic on the same subnet. It needs a router to get to other > networks. > > A switch acts like a hub, except that traffic is not shared between switch > ports like it is with a hub. This is why traffic between machines on a switch > can at times flow faster than traffic on a hub. For example... say machine 1 > and machine 2 are sharing some large graphics files. On a hub, every port > would have to contend with this traffic. With a switch, only the ports > actually involved with the traffic would see it. On the switch, machine 3 > could use the Internet without seeing any traffic contention from the large > file transfer going on between the other two machines. On a hub, it would see > the traffic and have to share bandwidth with it. As far as the machines > connected to either a switch or a hub are concerned, every machine sees every > other machine, they could care less. > > Get a switch. > > As far as a router , or what most folks incorrectly refer to a "router", this > is usually a combination device for Internet sharing with a router (hence the > WAN port to another network) and a multi-port switch (these are the ports > that the computers connect to) built into the same case. These devices work > well, are easy to configure, but nowhere in the same class as the stand alone > firewall/router (IP Cop) I described to you earlier. > > Didn't you say you were on dial-up? If this is the case a so-called Internet > sharing router would be useless to you , unless a separate switch was > actually more costly that a router/switch combo, and you used only the switch > part of the router. > > If you need to share the dial-up connection, the best and simplest way I know > of in a multi-boot networked environment is the method I described earlier. > > Rick Kunath > Just a small added note - most hubs will not support full-duplex operation, while most switches do. This usualy will not make a lot of difference, as you usualy are not sending and reciving large files at the same time...
A hub is like a party line, you take turns talking. A switch is lke a private line. A can talk to B while C talks to D. If both A and C want to talk to B, they talk turns. With full duplex, B can listen to A while talking to C at the same time. With half-duplex, B can talk to C, or listen to A, but not both at the same time. Usualy, this is not a problem, as most of the time, everybody is listening anyway. It only becomes a factor when large amounts of data have to be transfered. (think of a files server is a large office, where all the files are stored on the server, and not on the workstations.) Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
