VanLUG Email Archive
Harondel J. Sibble (help@pdscc.com)
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:01:03 -0800
On 22 Feb 00, at 15:19, dlinford@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> >basically for real work applications, the switch will offer better network
> ^^^^ <== you spelt "most" wrong?
> >performance period.
you're right I should have clarfied my statement, not "most" but NON-
ENTERPRISE which is the category that the original poster falls under.
> design choice _always_ adds latency. It ain't difficult to draw
> the graph, for the pathological case, and see that there is no
> way to get 'roud (i.e. transforms) the _potential_ problem.
I won't argue that fact, but I stand by my clarified statement, for non-
enterprise uses in the real world, a switch will out perform a hub 995 of the
time
> Just 'cause it doesn't effect you, don't make it not "real".
of course not
> That's nice, you can't think of one. You may wish to read up some,
> and try to figure out what is meant by sequential dependency.
what is your point, can you show me some real world examples of non-
enterprise and enterprise situations where a switch was slower than a 10/100
hub?
Harondel J. Sibble
Sibble Computer Consulting
Creating solutions for the small business and home computer user.
help@pdscc.com (pgp enabled) http://www.pdscc.com
(604) 739-3709 (voice/fax) (604) 686-2253 (pager)
-- This message came to you via the Vancouver Linux Users Group mailing list. For unsubscription instructions do not email the list, but rather send mail to <vanlug-request@gweep.bc.ca>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 02:02:42