'ping -f' a Win98 box (was: Re: Collisions on lan using Linux versus Windows)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 16 September 2002 08:24 pm, Jeff wrote:
> Bob Proulx, 2002-Sep-16 17:03 -0600:
> > Jeff <jcoppock1@attbi.com> [2002-09-16 14:19:34 -0700]:
> > > Robert Ian Smit, 2002-Sep-16 22:25 +0200:
> > > > I suppose so. Is it still true that on a busy lan you only get 40%
> > > > or less troughput? The guy who told me this years ago said that
> > > > ethernet was dead and tokenring the thing to have since you're
> > > > throughput would always be near 100%. Aesthetically ethernet was
> > > > never a thing of beauty, but it's cheap and it works.
> > >
> > > On a busy Ethernet segment that's shared, not switched, it's more like
> > > 60% throughput. The collisions and subsequent back-off routines
> >
> > But if you keep putting more and more talkers on the bus you will
> > eventually see even more decay of performance. Because it is a
> > collision detect and backoff process it is load dependent. Back in
> > the days of coax we would meltdown to around 40% before things
> > stabilized. I agree the 60% number is probably more typical of a
> > badly loaded ethertwist lan. I have seen 65% considered normal.
>
> Good point. I now recall my time on a 1500 meter ThickNet segment
> running 10MB/sec Ethernet. It was horrid! I seem to recall it ran at
> about 50% with only 100 talkers.
>
> > > Token Ring is yet another example where it doesn't matter if the
> > > technology is better. I think the "cheap and it works" is what did
> > > the trick for Ethernet.
> >
> > Agreed. Also you might remember a 100VG protocol which was a
> > collisionless protocol. It would give you sustainable bandwidth
> > utilization regardless of load and the number of transceivers on the
> > bus. But it could not compete with 100baseT being mostly a simple
> > frequency push of 10baseT. I think the hardware was the same price.
> > It just scared people that it used a slightly different technology
> > than they were used to. Also for some reason it was only available on
> > MS-Windows, where network performance was not considered critical, and
> > not available for the longest time on unix servers where network
> > performance was considered critical. Sigh.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I remember 100VG! I think HP came out with that and positioned it for
> multimedia with it's low-latency characteristics. It sure sounded
> cool!
>
> jc
Greetings:
I have been following the thread with interest. I decided to do a test my
LAN here while my bride was playing a game on her computer. I started a ping
- -f session on her box with my Linux laptop, then started another one from my
Linux desktop box. I didn't realize it would hamper her computer, but the
computer actually stopped responding to her simple Mahjongg game! Her box is
a 550MHz AMD k6 with 256Mb of RAM. It really seems odd. I can do the same
thing to the old Linux gateway/firewall p75 with 32Mb RAM without any
noticeable slow down.
Guess it's time to try it on a win-xp box. . . . <shrug>
tatah
- --
Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls\/A GNU-Debian linux user\/ http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls
If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. I SHOUT JUST FOR FUN.
Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9hr9vZHBxKsta6kMRApGBAJ9zMX49UsUm/v91qh/7xjaJbvbqOQCghPQK
+lemdsJvC2qBY5xdm02H6dI=
=TvPd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: