On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:31 -0700, Chris Wasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The theoretical maximum for 100BaseT-FDX (which is 200Mbps) is 25MB/s
(megabytes per second), 100BaseT-TX is 12MB/s [FYI: Mbps-MB/s you divide
by 8] I realize my punctuation may be off, but there you are.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:07:40PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:31 -0700, Chris Wasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Assuming you mean ``100BASE-T (half duplex)'' here... This is not
quite right. In a CSMA/CD medium access protocol, like that used by
Ethernet, the
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:25:59AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
There was a patch of DC21143 chips it seems that has a very strange
thermal problem. Can you tell me what your hub link lite is doing
when you see this major slow down?
Nope ... as this machine is connected directly to the
At 1:13 AM -0800 2000/2/25, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
So infact the Layer 2 maximal data rate of 100BaseTX is 97.5929Mb/s or
12.1912MB/s. I'll leave the Layer 3 to 7 calculation up to the reader,
as I am a hardware geek and I showed you how to do the calculations
at the hardwire layer,
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:13:51 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[I wrote:]
quite right. In a CSMA/CD medium access protocol, like that used by
Ethernet, the actual capacity of the link is always(*) somewhat less than
100%; the exact value depends on the precise
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:25:59AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
There was a patch of DC21143 chips it seems that has a very strange
thermal problem. Can you tell me what your hub link lite is doing
when you see this major slow down?
Nope ... as this machine is connected directly
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:13:51 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[I wrote:]
quite right. In a CSMA/CD medium access protocol, like that used by
Ethernet, the actual capacity of the link is always(*) somewhat less than
100%; the exact value depends on the precise
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:53:37 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I specifically excluded P(coll) by stating point to point or effectively
point to point via switching.
Rod, please bother to READ what people write before spewing nonsense.
The original question asked
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:53:37 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I specifically excluded P(coll) by stating point to point or effectively
point to point via switching.
Rod, please bother to READ what people write before spewing nonsense.
I did read it, and did not
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:28:15 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I answered SPECIFICALLY about half-duplex.
The duplex does not in any way effect the maximal link layer transmission
data rate. You seem to keep forgetting the maximal part...
The maximum for full-duplex
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:08:24 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The maximum for full-duplex is utterly irrelevant, since the bounds on
performance for half-duplex Ethernet networks come from CSMA/CD.
I will say it one last time, duplex falls out of the equations when
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:08:24 -0800 (PST), "Rodney W. Grimes"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The maximum for full-duplex is utterly irrelevant, since the bounds on
performance for half-duplex Ethernet networks come from CSMA/CD.
I will say it one last time, duplex falls out of the equations
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:07:40PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:31 -0700, Chris Wasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Assuming you mean ``100BASE-T (half duplex)'' here... This is not
quite right. In a CSMA/CD medium access protocol, like that used by
Ethernet, the actual
Ok ... we all know what exactly should be theoretical maximum and all ...
but that wasn't exactly my question ... I have having weird problems with
the network performance permanently dropping to below 100 kB/s (while still
in 100 Mbps/FDX). Is there anybody that could give a plausible
No, it is not. It is 100Mbps upstream and 100Mbps downstream. You cannot get
200Mbps in one direction. FDX (Full Duplex) simply means that the RX and TX
cables are used simultaneous. Due to the small ethernet frame size, it is
next to impossible to get the full speed for data transmission.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:31 -0700, Chris Wasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The theoretical maximum for 100BaseT-FDX (which is 200Mbps) is 25MB/s
(megabytes per second), 100BaseT-TX is 12MB/s [FYI: Mbps-MB/s you divide
by 8] I realize my punctuation may be off, but there you are.
Assuming you
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:48:35PM +0100, Dieter Rothacker wrote:
No, it is not. It is 100Mbps upstream and 100Mbps downstream. You cannot get
200Mbps in one direction. FDX (Full Duplex) simply means that the RX and TX
cables are used simultaneous. Due to the small ethernet frame size, it is
Hello,
I am experiencing some weird problems with the dc-driver for a specific
ethernet-card ... the Compex Freedomline (10/100 Mbps).
The card perfectly seems to autodetect the mode it should operate on and
seems to indeed be working just fine just after the system has booted up.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:04:38PM +0100, Pascal Hofstee wrote:
media: autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
Downloading an 128 MB-file from the network to /dev/null results in speeds
like 9.8 MB/s (close to the theoretical maximum for a 100 Mbps network)
The theoretical maximum for
Don't forget protocol overhead.
Chris Wasser wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:04:38PM +0100, Pascal Hofstee wrote:
media: autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
Downloading an 128 MB-file from the network to /dev/null results in speeds
like 9.8 MB/s (close to the theoretical maximum
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:31 -0700, Chris Wasser wrote:
Downloading an 128 MB-file from the network to /dev/null results in speeds
like 9.8 MB/s (close to the theoretical maximum for a 100 Mbps network)
The theoretical maximum for 100BaseT-FDX (which is 200Mbps) is 25MB/s
(megabytes per
21 matches
Mail list logo
