Rob Townley schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner <rainer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Rob Townley schrieb:
>>
>>> Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in
>>> that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLinksys while another hates
>>> HP. Let's get a more scientific approach. Switch performance still
>>> depends on the NICS in the client machines.
>>>
>> Uhm. No. Not any longer, AFAIK.
>> At least, once you leave the SOHO region (AFAIK, the OP wanted >= 48
>> ports. I don't want to work in such a home-office, really...).
>>
>
> There are 48 port SOHO priced switches nowadays.
I see your point.
I only imagined the "home office" that would need 48 ports ;-)
> i am often not very
> impressed by network performance and need standardized benchmarks to
> figure out if there may be an issue at the NIC driver, switch or on up
> to a virus shield. It was either a ~2004 Dell Power magazine or
> ~2004 Network World article that mentioned that 3Com NICs didn't
> perform well with Cisco switches and vice versa.
Hm. I think I saw something like that (I was at a site that used
Catalyst 6500-switches to connect desktops - in 2001).
Autosensing was useless...
> They also wrote
> about other vendors and i don't remember any of them performing
> extremely well across vendor. Now that NICs are a commodity, the
> problem could be worse.
>
>
Here, autosensing sometimes doesn't work. Then, you've got to set it
fixed on both the client and the switch-port.
> What "performance data" are you referring to?
>
What you gathered in the past from other switches on your LAN - and what
you read on the internet ;-))
I'm not a networking-guy (switches are done by someone else here).
Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
