"Bernie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >No. No more so than it would if the other 30 computers were occupied. The
> >network devices communicate CONSTANTLY, both during periods when humans
are
> >present, and in periods of complete absence. The ammount of communication
> >doesn't suddenly go up at night when all the humans go home.
>
> Of course that's right. But if we compare a room where only one computer
> sends to the network compared to one where every computer is sending the
> one with only one computer will be able to use the network better (for
> usefull things). And that's the point.
Uhm, we may have drifted from the original topic - the (original) point was
that seeing LAN activity on an "unoccupied" network is not at all unusual,
and is necessary in many cases, particulary -- especially -- if more than
one subnet is involved.
If normal network background chatter is causing impact on users, then
there's something wrong with the network design. Prudent use of routing,
switching and filtering can probably help.
> >If the amount of traffic is well below the saturation point for the
> >network -- and presumably it would or you've got a broken network
> >configuration -- then the one user would probably not be able to detect
any
> >sort of difference.
>
> That depends of the size and ammount of packages beeing sent. At the
> university the packages seem to be small in size but are very often beeing
> sent. That will lead to many collisions on the same segment.
"Many" is a relative term. Less than 2% collisions is considered "typical"
in a well designed shared Ethernet (CSMA/CD, 10/100Base-X, take your pick)
environment. The fact that collisions occur doesn't mean that the network is
noticeably slow. That 2% may consist of THOUSANDS of collisions, but spread
across the time measured, they're insignificant.
Even if you went with a totally switched environment and nearly eliminated
all collisions, you'd still likely see some traffic during idle periods on a
network of any size, even in the middle of the night.
> >God, I would HOPE the monitor's grounded! Never mind radiation.M
>
> Mine is not, and so is the case for most Swedish computers/monitors that
> are in peoples homes. I did grounded a computer (that was shut down) with
> the radiator and my arm and that wasn't very funny at all ;)
Really? I had no idea not grounding equipment was common in that part of the
world. My closest experience comes from Germany during the period of
1977-1989, and they were VERY big on grounding just about everything it
seemed.
Relating to your original question about visibility of TCO standards, I
found this under the specs for my monitor:
International Energy Star, NUTEK, and VESA DPMS compliant
Emission/EMI: FCC Class B, IC Class B, MPR II (TUV) (full compliance),
TCO 99
Designed for: Microsoft Windows NT and Windows 98, Macintosh Compatible
Plug & Play: DDC-1, DDC-2AB
The "Designed for" is pretty scary in a monitor for Pete's sake! I'd not
realized that MPR is TUV (German) equivalent earlier.
- Bob
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
