rec.autos.simulators

by **Tim** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:37:45

An ISP company told me that there was no real difference using 10baseT vs
100 when you connect a T1 str8 thru without a hub

Any opinions on this are appreciated

by **+G2** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:25:40

A T1 connection is around 1.54Mbps. A 10BaseT Ethernet is 10Mbps.
So, yes they're right in that the 10Mbps card will handle the T1 nicely.

With that said IF the 100Mbps card has a lot lower latency while handling
the traffic from the T1 versus the 10Mbps one, I'd go with that (or vice
versa). Capacity is one thing, latency is another.

by **Tim** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:55:06

Thanks

by **Peter Ogde** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:51:58

The difference in latency between 10baseT and 10base100 is still so minimal
in comparison to the latency of the T1 connection itself as to make it
insignificant. Though, if you already have a 10baseT setup, I'd stick with
it, but if you have to buy network gear, the difference in cost is so
minimal these days, you might as well have 10base100.

--

- Peter Ogden
Perth, West Australia

WWW: http://www.esbconsult.com.au/ogden/
or: http://surf.to/locost/

by **Todd Walk** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:54:16

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:51:58 +0800, "Peter Ogden"

>Though, if you already have a 10baseT setup, I'd stick with
>it, but if you have to buy network gear, the difference in cost is so
>minimal these days, you might as well have 10base100.

That would be 100BaseT ;-)

*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon Pro90IS:
http://twalker.d2g.com/pro90/index.htm
*-*-*-*-*-*-*

by **Tim** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:12:48

I just want the most bang for the buck
Thanks

> The difference in latency between 10baseT and 10base100 is still so
minimal
> in comparison to the latency of the T1 connection itself as to make it
> insignificant. Though, if you already have a 10baseT setup, I'd stick with
> it, but if you have to buy network gear, the difference in cost is so
> minimal these days, you might as well have 10base100.

> --

> - Peter Ogden
> Perth, West Australia

> WWW: http://www.esbconsult.com.au/ogden/
> or: http://surf.to/locost/

> > A T1 connection is around 1.54Mbps. A 10BaseT Ethernet is 10Mbps.
> > So, yes they're right in that the 10Mbps card will handle the T1 nicely.

> > With that said IF the 100Mbps card has a lot lower latency while
handling
> > the traffic from the T1 versus the 10Mbps one, I'd go with that (or vice
> > versa). Capacity is one thing, latency is another.

by **Biz** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:38:17

Actually it would be 100baseTX, maybe the other guy meant 10-4...:)

--
Biz

"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:51:58 +0800, "Peter Ogden"

> >Though, if you already have a 10baseT setup, I'd stick with
> >it, but if you have to buy network gear, the difference in cost is so
> >minimal these days, you might as well have 10base100.

> That would be 100BaseT ;-)

> *-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Todd Walker
> http://twalker.d2g.com
> Canon Pro90IS:
> http://twalker.d2g.com/pro90/index.htm
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*

by **Peter Ogde** » Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:33:59

Errr, yeah! (mumble, mumble)...

--

- Peter Ogden
Perth, West Australia

WWW: http://www.esbconsult.com.au/ogden/
or: http://surf.to/locost/

by **+G2** » Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:51:29

Latency is also a measure of how quickly the interface/router handles the
bits once it receives them. I would think that this would depend on the
router CPU/RAM/ current load/number of interfaces it needs to service, etc.

I would think this would be significant to some degree depending on the
scenario.

by **Peter Ogde** » Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:56:33

You are correct that latency also includes the time taken for the
interface/router to handle the bits once it receives them, though this is
still only such a small figure that it is usually swamped but the length of
time involved in data transfers. A "typical" data transfer (ping) figure
might be, say, 50 - 80mS. A network card has a latency of around 0.3mS - and
this doesn't vary significantly between 10M and 100M. An ISDN adapter on the
other hand, has a latency of around 10mS. These latency figures can never be
improved on - they are the minimum delays you can ever expect, no matter
what the conditions. The rest of the delays are up to the speed of the
connection - which depends very much on the devices between you and the
destination and how busy they are. Your internal (Ethernet) network
connection is likely to only go through a single hub before reaching your
computer, where a connection to an Internet site (T1) might be through
anything up to 10 or more routers/switches/hubs.

So with the original question of whether it was better to have a 10baseT
network card or a 100baseTX to connect a PC to a T1 ISDN adapter - the
difference between the two is unlikely to be noticed in this context - the
latency of the network cards will never be statistically significant
compared with the latency experienced with the T1 connection.

--

- Peter Ogden
Perth, West Australia

WWW: http://www.esbconsult.com.au/ogden/
or: http://surf.to/locost/

> > The difference in latency between 10baseT and 10base100 is still so
> minimal
> > in comparison to the latency of the T1 connection itself as to make it
> > insignificant.

> Latency is also a measure of how quickly the interface/router handles the
> bits once it receives them. I would think that this would depend on the
> router CPU/RAM/ current load/number of interfaces it needs to service,
etc.

> I would think this would be significant to some degree depending on the
> scenario.

by **+G2** » Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:51:03

Thank you for expanding on that.

by **Steve Garrot** » Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:47:07

The only benefit I see in uning a 100 over a 10 is in a home network
environment. Where more than one computer is connected to a DSL/Cable
connection. This will allow faster access from computer to computer.

SLG

>Thank you for expanding on that.

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
due to too many English classes/teachers)

by **Thom j** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:51:47

service with a 100mg up/download-kbs? Wont you need a 100?
-Thom_j.
Btw: the sucker cost $250 a month! phew...

| The only benefit I see in uning a 100 over a 10 is in a home network
| environment. Where more than one computer is connected to a DSL/Cable
| connection. This will allow faster access from computer to computer.
|
| SLG

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

by **Tim** » Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:07:31

100 megabites???
pleeez elaborate cause for $250 i'll get out the kneepads
:)

> service with a 100mg up/download-kbs? Wont you need a 100?
> -Thom_j.
> Btw: the sucker cost $250 a month! phew...

> | The only benefit I see in uning a 100 over a 10 is in a home network
> | environment. Where more than one computer is connected to a DSL/Cable
> | connection. This will allow faster access from computer to computer.
> |
> | SLG

> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

by **Thom j** » Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:27:14

LOL oops.. Sorry I meant to type 10meg up/down-kbs..
"O" well I aint purrfect.. :)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001