On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:30:42 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
(...)
> Still friends?
But of course :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.deb
On Du, 05 feb 12, 18:30:42, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Not all do. Some do. And the reason is that I'm a stickler for
> technical correctness, I guess, and I don't like seeing misinformation
> spread across the web. Yes, I'm a one man internet correctness police
> force. I stay really busy. ;)
On 2/5/2012 2:33 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> It's okay, Stan. I don't know why most of the replies in this list end
> this way with you.
Not all do. Some do. And the reason is that I'm a stickler for
technical correctness, I guess, and I don't like seeing misinformation
spread across the web. Yes,
On 2/5/2012 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> You have a fundamental misunderstanding induced EMI/RFI. The source of
>> the interference must be relatively close, physically, to the cable, in
>> order for the cable to pick up sufficient noise to interfere with
>> signals. A
Stan writes:
> True, single mode vs multi mode. But you still need
> qualified/experienced installers with the proper tools to do the
> terminations.
As far as I know most use cables cut to length and terminated at the
factory for in-building runs (though it is certainly possible to do it
in the
On 2/4/2012 7:22 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> Fiber is another different thing. We do also have it installed since the
>> last summer (4 FTTH lines, a 16-fibers cable) but working with the fiber
>> can be only done by certified installers and the required tools are very
>> expensi
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:39:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 12:25 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>>
>>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors
etc with horrific EMI levels, fiber
On 2/4/2012 12:25 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors etc
>>> with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6. With EFI
>>> levels that high, ev
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:44:32 -0800, owens wrote:
(...)
> Are we in an "apples and oranges" debate here? Camaleon continues to
> refer to FTTH for her examples which by nature are controlled by the
> PTTs or Telecommunications providers, while Stan and others use
> intra-data center and intra-LAN
- Original Message -
From: Camaleón
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: 2/5/2012 11:04:50 AM
Subject: Re: My network speed is only 10MB
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:50:48 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> You never know wha
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Induced currents in poorly wired power-line grounding probably effect
> you more if you're using shielded cable connected to that same
> grounding.
You should not ground the shield at both ends.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debia
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding induced EMI/RFI. The source of
the interference must be relatively close, physically, to the cable, in
order for the cable to pick up sufficient noise to interfere with
signals. A power plant, or even a Tesla coil, in the building nex
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:50:48 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> You never know what kind of company is going to be installed next to
>> your garden, right? So one day you open the door and find a power plant
>> is your brand-new neighbor. At the time you
[No Subject]
Hide Details
FROM:
* D.G. Gómez
TO:
* debian-user@lists.debian.org
Message flagged
Sunday, 5 February 2012 10:28 AM
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturi
Camaleón wrote:
> Fiber is another different thing. We do also have it installed since the
> last summer (4 FTTH lines, a 16-fibers cable) but working with the fiber
> can be only done by certified installers and the required tools are very
> expensive, not every company can afford that.
The lo
On 2/4/2012 10:03 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:47:16 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/2012 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> No, I can't see why is not that popular within the US, there are many
>>> advantadges for having shielded cables because external interferences -
>>> th
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:36:04 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors etc
>> with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6. With EFI
>> levels that high, even STP won't save you.
>
> STP can make thing
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> In the US, in the case of environments such as manufacturing floors
> etc with horrific EMI levels, fiber is used instead of UTP CAT5/6.
> With EFI levels that high, even STP won't save you.
STP can make things worse as almost nobody knows how to terminate
shields in such a
On 2/4/2012 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> No, I can't see why is not that popular within the US, there are many
> advantadges for having shielded cables because external interferences -
> that are not always under your control- still apply (e.g., wireless
> connections, proximity to high power line
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:40:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 8:11 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> Nobody uses shielded twisted pair cabling these days, not for quite
>>> some time. There is almost zero benefit. And if not installed
On 2/2/2012 8:11 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Nobody uses shielded twisted pair cabling these days, not for quite some
>> time. There is almost zero benefit. And if not installed (grounded)
>> correctly the performance can be horrible, and/or
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:39 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 9:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> One of our company networks was installed from scratch on later 2005
>> and I made it Gigabit (STP Cat.6) but should I have now to do it again
>> I would consider in adding 10 Gigabit capabilities
On 2/1/2012 9:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> One of our company networks was installed from scratch on later 2005 and
> I made it Gigabit (STP Cat.6) but should I have now to do it again I
> would consider in adding 10 Gigabit capabilities, at least for the
> cabling (devices are still overpriced): i
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:48:23 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 11:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/fully-managed-switches/switch-modules/AX744.aspx
>>
>> Oh, I see...
>>
>> http://
On 1/31/2012 11:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/fully-managed-switches/switch-modules/AX744.aspx
>
> Oh, I see...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#10GBASE-CX4
>
> Never hea
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:18:44 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 10:15 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>>>
So I check NewEgg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168
On 1/30/2012 10:15 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>>
>>> So I check NewEgg:
>>>
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392 10Gb/s:
>>>
>>> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And th
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
>
>> So I check NewEgg:
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392 10Gb/s:
>>
>> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And that's the cheapest one!
>
> You're either a mor
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:15 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ethernet at 100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s
> File copy at 10 MB/s = 80 Mb/s
>
> Ethernet at 1000 Mb/s = 125 MB/s
> File copy at 117 MB/s = 936 Mb/s
Thanks Stan, for all your explains.
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.so
On 1/22/2012 9:09 PM, T o n g wrote:
> Thanks again for everyone's follow up. Interesting discussion.
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:09:13 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> 9.9MB/s (megabyte/sec.) is roughly 80mb/s (megabit/sec) - fairly
>> reasonable for a 100baseT network card
>
> Oh, now I recal
On 1/22/2012 11:45 AM, hvw59601 wrote:
> So I check NewEgg:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392
> 10Gb/s:
>
> Check that price! $279.99 Holy Cow! And that's the cheapest one!
You're either a moron or a troll. Which is it?
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
hvw59601 wrote:
> Very interesting. So I measured... 11MB/s. Ethtool says card
> (onboard) can do 100Mb/s. So quite good.
>
> I think: get a faster card and put that in... :-)
>
> So I check NewEgg:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122392
> 10Gb/s:
>
> Check that pri
T o n g wrote:
Hi,
I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
better. So,
- How can tell if my network cards can do better than 10MB?
- What's the most probable reason for the slow network speed? I.e., which
is a good order that I check for the problem?
Very
On 1/21/2012 9:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> T o n g wrote:
>
>> FYI, this is how I tested,
>>
>> Measuring Network Speeds with Netcat and Dd
>> http://jbowes.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/measuring-network-speeds-with-
>> netcat-and-dd/
>>
>> Here is my output:
>>
>> 512+0 records in
>> 512+0 rec
T o n g wrote:
FYI, this is how I tested,
Measuring Network Speeds with Netcat and Dd
http://jbowes.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/measuring-network-speeds-with-
netcat-and-dd/
Here is my output:
512+0 records in
512+0 records out
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 54.4971 s, 9.9 MB/s
9.9MB/s
On 1/21/2012 12:42 PM, T o n g wrote:
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
> better. So,
How did you test, with what software? Also:
MB = MegaBytes
mb = megabits
Assuming you mean 10MB/s then you probably have a 100FDX ethernet NIC,
switch, or both.
> - Ho
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:49:15 +0500, Syed Hasan Atizaz wrote:
> well 10MB is quite good, things that could affect your network speed
> could be firewall, iptables, router itself plus the cables, i mean no
> matter if you have cat 6 connected at one end and . . .
Thanks for everybody's replies, es
Hello,
T o n g a écrit :
>
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB.
10 MB is not a speed. It is a quantity, a volume of data. Also, "B" is
ambiguous : is it bit or byte ? A speed would be expressed in bit/s or
byte/s.
> - How can tell if my network cards can do better than 10MB?
Usin
T o n g wrote:
Hi,
I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
better. So,
How did you test it?
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http
well 10MB is quite good, things that could affect your network speed
could be firewall, iptables, router itself plus the cables, i mean no
matter if you have cat 6 connected at one end and on the other end its
a typical cat5, speed would vary sufficiently. look for auto neg
however it will hardly d
T o n g wrote:
> I just tested my network speed. It is only 10MB. But I think it can do
> better. So,
>
> - How can tell if my network cards can do better than 10MB?
> - What's the most probable reason for the slow network speed? I.e., which
> is a good order that I check for the problem?
Start
41 matches
Mail list logo
