RE: 100mbit nic: intel or 3com?
Everone *says* they have world class 10/100 cards, but how many really talk
to each other at that speed reliably ? When I am doing an daily backup
transfers the line runs ~ 85-90 MB for an hour, I've had too many cards drop
down to 10 or half duplex (eh!) or re-autonegotiate every couple of minutes
or so. Some cards just don't do 100 or f/d at all with certain devices on
the other end.
Intel nics are ok; they are scads better than realtek (don't get me started
on those) linksys or dlink cheapies. 3coms will save you some extra hair
pulling when your 100MB or 1000MB network is suddenly performing like a
10/half-duplex network running a windows server. 3com has some low-ends;
I'd stay away from those too. I would stick with 905B or above.
What are peoples experiences with switches ? For the office where the co.
pays, I would have to recommend cisco for the same reasons. But for the
soho or home network, cisco is not cost feasible. How well do small
switches scale ? How many devices/traffic to saturate ?
From: John Cichy [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: 100mbit nic: intel or 3com?
IMHO (and this might get me flamed), 3com. I have tried a lot of other cards
and I have found that 3com's are well supported (by both linux and doze) and
just seem to keep running. 3com's are usually more expensive then the
but I feel the extra cost is worth having less aggravation.
On Friday 01 February 2002 11:40, Victor Julien wrote:
> I want to build a debian based router/gateway/fileserver/mailserver for a
> home network with 12 clients. It will be quite low budget as the server is
> a Pentium 166Mhz. I want the network to be 100mbit fullduplex, so I want
> buy a Nic for the server. Which one is best for maximum performance and
> stability? Intel, 3com, SMC or just a cheap Realtek? I think the nic
> be using the cpu as little as possible...
> Thanks for your advice,
> Victor Julien