[opensuse] Re: OFF-LIST Do you think this can be done? I'm not sure
On 06/04/2016 08:18 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
So? My point is that, like buggy whips and horses, its still being made and sold.
Still being made? I doubt that. Why would anyone still make something that's so inferior to what's current? What possible use could there be when switches are so much better. At least whips still have a use with horses, as there hasn't been something better developed. That hub, from 1998 would be among the last of those devices, as by the mid 90s, switches were appearing. At the time, hubs were still cheaper, but that day has long gone. And even a 10 Mb switch can outperform a 10 Mb hub by a wide margin and 100 Mb hubs had barely arrived, when they disappeared. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting James Knott
On 06/04/2016 08:18 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
So? My point is that, like buggy whips and horses, its still being made and sold.
Still being made? I doubt that. Why would anyone still make something that's so inferior to what's current? What possible use could there be when switches are so much better. At least whips still have a use with horses, as there hasn't been something better developed. That hub, from 1998 would be among the last of those devices, as by the mid 90s, switches were appearing. At the time, hubs were still cheaper, but that day has long gone. And even a 10 Mb switch can outperform a 10 Mb hub by a wide margin and 100 Mb hubs had barely arrived, when they disappeared.
A hub can act as a cheap tap to monitor network traffic. I used one with Snort on the Internet facing side of a broadband router to see what the firewall was keeping at bay. A switch can't do that. A real tap is much more expensive. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/04/2016 10:19 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
A hub can act as a cheap tap to monitor network traffic. I used one with Snort on the Internet facing side of a broadband router to see what the firewall was keeping at bay. A switch can't do that.
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer. A managed switch, with port mirroring can also be used to monitor traffic, without such a severe hit on performance.
A real tap is much more expensive.
A cheap managed switch is not. This switch supports port mirroring: http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1045_355&item_id=084911 It's a gigabit switch and you can configure it so that one port can monitor the traffic of one or more other ports. BTW, this costs about $20 less than what I paid for an 8 port, 10 Mb hub, back in the late 90s. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting James Knott
On 06/04/2016 10:19 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
A hub can act as a cheap tap to monitor network traffic. I used one with Snort on the Internet facing side of a broadband router to see what the firewall was keeping at bay. A switch can't do that.
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer. A managed switch, with port mirroring can also be used to monitor traffic, without such a severe hit on performance.
A real tap is much more expensive.
A cheap managed switch is not. This switch supports port mirroring: http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1045_355&item_id=084911
It's a gigabit switch and you can configure it so that one port can monitor the traffic of one or more other ports. BTW, this costs about $20 less than what I paid for an 8 port, 10 Mb hub, back in the late 90s.
Those that can afford Gb connections to the Internet can afford more expensive hardware than I can. This was a decade ago. I probably had somewhere between 2Mbps and 10Mbps connectivity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/04/2016 10:49 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
It's a gigabit switch and you can configure it so that one port can
monitor the traffic of one or more other ports. BTW, this costs about $20 less than what I paid for an 8 port, 10 Mb hub, back in the late 90s.
Those that can afford Gb connections to the Internet can afford more expensive hardware than I can. This was a decade ago. I probably had somewhere between 2Mbps and 10Mbps connectivity.
Many people run over 100 Mb Internet connections these days, not to mentioned gigabit on the local LAN. Also, I just remembered another use for my hub. It is, in fact, a 9 port hub, with the 9th port a BNC connector on the rear panel. This means I could use that hub to connect a 10base2 coax network to a switch. Problem is, 10base2 became obsolete when 10baseT hubs appeared and are really scarce now. Incidentally, back in 1997, I was working on a project in the Ontario government buildings in "Queen's Park" in Toronto, to convert their network from 10base2 to 10baseT switched network. They went straight from 10base2 to switches, without bothering with hubs. Hubs would not have given a performance improvement over coax, but switches did. My first experience with Ethernet would have been with DECNET, connecting VAX 11/780 computers, back in the 80s. That network used the 10base5 "thick net" cables (10base2 was called "thin net"). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting James Knott
On 06/04/2016 10:49 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
It's a gigabit switch and you can configure it so that one port can
monitor the traffic of one or more other ports. BTW, this costs about $20 less than what I paid for an 8 port, 10 Mb hub, back in the late 90s.
Those that can afford Gb connections to the Internet can afford more expensive hardware than I can. This was a decade ago. I probably had somewhere between 2Mbps and 10Mbps connectivity.
Many people run over 100 Mb Internet connections these days, not to mentioned gigabit on the local LAN. Also, I just remembered another use for my hub. It is, in fact, a 9 port hub, with the 9th port a BNC connector on the rear panel. This means I could use that hub to connect a 10base2 coax network to a switch. Problem is, 10base2 became obsolete when 10baseT hubs appeared and are really scarce now. Incidentally, back in 1997, I was working on a project in the Ontario government buildings in "Queen's Park" in Toronto, to convert their network from 10base2 to 10baseT switched network. They went straight from 10base2 to switches, without bothering with hubs. Hubs would not have given a performance improvement over coax, but switches did. My first experience with Ethernet would have been with DECNET, connecting VAX 11/780 computers, back in the 80s. That network used the 10base5 "thick net" cables (10base2 was called "thin net").
I have worked with both thin net and thick net (vampire taps :). When the T-W technician hooked up the current Internet cable modem and I plugged in my Thinkpad, I was pleasantly surprised to see it announce 1Gbps. Haven't seen that before. The other side was 100Mbps at first, apparently a mis-configuration. After a few months it dropped down to the 50Mbps I was paying for. We've come a long way from the first modem I bought, 1200 bps. Never owned a 300bps acoutic modem though I've used a few at work. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/04/2016 11:35 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I have worked with both thin net and thick net (vampire taps :). When the T-W technician hooked up the current Internet cable modem and I plugged in my Thinkpad, I was pleasantly surprised to see it announce 1Gbps. Haven't seen that before. The other side was 100Mbps at first, apparently a mis-configuration. After a few months it dropped down to the 50Mbps I was paying for.
We've come a long way from the first modem I bought, 1200 bps. Never owned a 300bps acoutic modem though I've used a few at work.
I occasionally see 10 Gb at work. My first modem was a 300B manual modem. I got that thanks to the Adventure game. One day my wife was visiting my office and I showed her Adventure on a VAX. She asked if we could play it on my computer (an IMSAI 8080). I said no, but if we had a modem, she could dial into the VAX. I was soon the proud owner of that 300B modem. :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 05:04, James Knott wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:49 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Many people run over 100 Mb Internet connections these days, not to mentioned gigabit on the local LAN. Also, I just remembered another use for my hub. It is, in fact, a 9 port hub, with the 9th port a BNC connector on the rear panel. This means I could use that hub to connect a 10base2 coax network to a switch. Problem is, 10base2 became obsolete when 10baseT hubs appeared and are really scarce now.
I installed my first network somewhere around 1994, using coax cable, at the place I was working. Actually, the administration side of the building had RJ plugs and a hub with a coax socket in the back like yours. I had no idea how to use hubs and had no crimper, so I built the network for the two or three lab computers using coax cable. Which turned to be a bonus, because we had huge electrical noise during machine testing down there, and the coax network worked just fine. Without internet, mind. Windows 3.11 and 95 I think. Huge noise: 75 KW electric motor with full switched regulation. During motor and brake testing. The lights in the building trembled (the intensity of the light trembled). I tested transferring files just then and worked. Now I could have used shielded twisted pair, but at the time I barely knew of its existence. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 2016-06-05 04:49, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Quoting James Knott <>:
It's a gigabit switch and you can configure it so that one port can monitor the traffic of one or more other ports. BTW, this costs about $20 less than what I paid for an 8 port, 10 Mb hub, back in the late 90s.
Those that can afford Gb connections to the Internet can afford more expensive hardware than I can. This was a decade ago. I probably had somewhere between 2Mbps and 10Mbps connectivity.
Huh, no. I have a 300Mb connection, for I think 7€ more than the 100Mb basic connection. And a 300 Mb connection requires gigabit hadrware inside of the house to be of use. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating. Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true. Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them. Context is Everything. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 16:06, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating.
Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true.
Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them.
Context is Everything.
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle. Maybe there are hubs somewhere. Old stuff lying around, or sellers trying to sell obsolete stuff. Of course many people would not know of the difference. Or even notice. They would perhaps think that Internet is slow but think that it is like that, nothing to be done. You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 06/05/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-06-05 16:06, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating.
Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true.
Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them.
Context is Everything.
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle.
Maybe there are hubs somewhere. Old stuff lying around, or sellers trying to sell obsolete stuff. Of course many people would not know of the difference. Or even notice. They would perhaps think that Internet is slow but think that it is like that, nothing to be done.
You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better.
In the context of home users or the context of check-box driven 'netadmin, yes. But, sorry, there are still outlets selling them, clearly labelled as HUBS. They are cheap. As Jeffrey pointed out they have uses, but not the kind of use a home user or 'netadmin who consistently buys Cisco are going to be engaged in, albeit for very different reasons :-) A vendor selling a hub to someone, like a home user, who should be buying a switch, just to cellar his old stock, is a swindle, yes. A vendor selling a hub to someone who asking for a "hub, most emphatically NOT a switch", for reasons such as Jeffrey outlines (or possibly other uses) is not a swindler. Context is Everything. In the appropriate context, a horse (or mule or donkey) and horse whip is a better solution than a Ferrari and accelerator pedal. Context is Everything. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 16:52, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/05/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle.
The section is called "hubs and switches" in that shop. But looking carefully, all the hubs are "USB switches". I sorted the page by price, hopping to see "hub". But none I could see for ethernet. Some very cheap items, though, under 10€. http://www.pccomponentes.com/hubs_switchs.html D-Link GO-SW-5E/E Switch 10/100 5 Puertos - Hub/Switch But it is a switch, it has a MAC table, store and forward... And 9.95€ That web parlance doesn't know a hub from a switch. But looking at the details of they actually sell, all are switches. Well, all those I looked at. At those prices, there is no justification for hubs. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Quoting Anton Aylward
On 06/05/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-06-05 16:06, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating.
Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true.
Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them.
Context is Everything.
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle.
Maybe there are hubs somewhere. Old stuff lying around, or sellers trying to sell obsolete stuff. Of course many people would not know of the difference. Or even notice. They would perhaps think that Internet is slow but think that it is like that, nothing to be done.
You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better.
[snip]
In the appropriate context, a horse (or mule or donkey) and horse whip is a better solution than a Ferrari and accelerator pedal.
Speaking of which, NASA is using mules to help calibrate their latest satellite. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/why-did-the-mule-climb-the-mou... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle.
Maybe there are hubs somewhere. Old stuff lying around, or sellers trying to sell obsolete stuff. Of course many people would not know of the difference. Or even notice. They would perhaps think that Internet is slow but think that it is like that, nothing to be done.
You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better.
I first saw consumer grade routers about 21 years ago, at a computer show. This was so long ago that they were designed for dial up access, not cable modem or DSL (neither of those were available at the time). Even then, they had a switch and not a hub. I have never seen a consumer router that used a hub and doubt there ever was one. This was around the time that switches were replacing hubs in general. You could still buy hubs then, and they were significantly cheaper than a switch. These days, you can get a new switch for as little as $10 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 16:54, James Knott wrote:
On 06/05/2016 10:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I first saw consumer grade routers about 21 years ago, at a computer show. This was so long ago that they were designed for dial up access, not cable modem or DSL (neither of those were available at the time). Even then, they had a switch and not a hub. I have never seen a consumer router that used a hub and doubt there ever was one. This was around the time that switches were replacing hubs in general. You could still buy hubs then, and they were significantly cheaper than a switch. These days, you can get a new switch for as little as $10
Yes, I noticed. I was looking at the specs of my old router, a Comtrend CT536+. Can't figure out if it was switch or hub. I think it was a hub because all traffic was visible. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Quoting Carlos E. R.
On 2016-06-05 16:06, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating.
Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true.
Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them.
Context is Everything.
I just had a look at my local shop, and they don't even sell ethernet hubs. If someone sells today a hub for someone to install at home, I consider that a swindle. Pure swindle.
Maybe there are hubs somewhere. Old stuff lying around, or sellers trying to sell obsolete stuff. Of course many people would not know of the difference. Or even notice. They would perhaps think that Internet is slow but think that it is like that, nothing to be done.
You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better.
At the time, switches were available at a reasonable price. IIRC, switches with mirroring ports were not as affordable. I had to look around to find a hub. 300Mbps Internet is available where I live for $70 (63€) per month. The 50Mbps connection I have is half that. In practice there is almost nothing I use that comes close to maxing that out. Even with two laptops and a smartphone, anything more than 50Mbps is throwing money away. With the light population here and mostly heavily loaded servers on the other end, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between a hub and a switch without more effort testing than it's worth. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-06 23:30, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Quoting Carlos E. R. <>:
You should not consider using a hub even on the humblest of setups, unless you can not get something better.
At the time, switches were available at a reasonable price. IIRC, switches with mirroring ports were not as affordable.
That's a point, yes.
I had to look around to find a hub. 300Mbps Internet is available where I live for $70 (63€) per month. The 50Mbps connection I have is half that. In practice there is almost nothing I use that comes close to maxing that out. Even with two laptops and a smartphone, anything more than 50Mbps is throwing money away.
There is no 50Mbps fibre connection from this provider I use. I think I can force them to go down to 12 (the equivalent in price and perfomance of ADSL), but it comes with a drop in other benefits: free calls, free calls on mobile, TV on demand... Going from 100Mbps to 300 was 7 euros. I did not want the speed increase, I wanted other benefits that came with it, like increase of 1 to 2 GB data cap on the mobile, and TV serials on demand service. 50, or rather 60Mbps is offered by another provider that use fibre to the block, then coax to the home. They simply have it hard to go to 300, so the competition does it in order to have a publicity advantage, not because it is really needed. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 06/05/2016 10:06 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36 PM, James Knott wrote:
Most hubs run at 10 Mb, a few at 100 Mb and none at Gb. A hub will severely throttle modern connections, which may interfere with what you're trying to observer.
Once again, James, your missing the point of the CONTEXT Jeffrey was stating.
Yes there are going to be contexts where what you say is true, and ones, certainly ones that I have met and probably Jeffrey has met, where what you say isn't true.
Its also possible that even with the slowing down the problem still appears because it has nothing to do with the speed of the packets and everything to do with something else about them.
Context is Everything.
Yep and the context in today's networks is that hubs are obsolete. I have used port mirroring in my work to work on a problem. The only time I ever used a hub for monitoring at work was to simply show my manager it could be done to read plain text passwords. Back in the day, when I had only a 6 Mb Internet connection, using a hub for monitoring would not have been a significant issue. These days I have a 60 Mb connection and many others have much higher bandwidth. Using a hub is like using a crank to start your car. Again, I don't recall seeing new hubs for quite some time, but I'm sure I could find one if I were to dig through my closet. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 10:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
Using a hub is like using a crank to start your car.
Hmmm, talk to Jay Leno about that :-) -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 10:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
Again, I don't recall seeing new hubs for quite some time,
A google search shows up a few but i only see 4-port ones. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 11:00 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/05/2016 10:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
Again, I don't recall seeing new hubs for quite some time, A google search shows up a few but i only see 4-port ones.
New, recently manufactured ones? Or just old stock? That Netgear/Bay Networks one you linked to yesterday was definitely old stock or used. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/04/2016 10:19 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
A hub can act as a cheap tap to monitor network traffic. I used one with Snort on the Internet facing side of a broadband router to see what the firewall was keeping at bay. A switch can't do that.
A real tap is much more expensive.
Thank you Jeffrey, for that nice, simply example showing a realistic context! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 10:01 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:19 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
A hub can act as a cheap tap to monitor network traffic. I used one with Snort on the Internet facing side of a broadband router to see what the firewall was keeping at bay. A switch can't do that.
A real tap is much more expensive.
Thank you Jeffrey, for that nice, simply example showing a realistic context!
However, as I pointed out last night, a cheap gigibit managed switch cost $20 less than the hub I bought years ago and can do the job better. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/04/2016 09:59 PM, James Knott wrote:
On 06/04/2016 08:18 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
So? My point is that, like buggy whips and horses, its still being made and sold.
Still being made? I doubt that.
Horses have a lifetime of what, 20-30 years? They are still around, so they must "still be made" somewhere, somehow. Outside the city, certainly Out West, there are a LOT of them. Heck, here in the city there are horse and carriage rides; its a speciality for weddings! And guess what? Those carriage drivers have 'horse whips'. maybe they are only for show, but they are there. A business guru once commented that today's horse whip manufacturers must be VERY efficient to have stayed in business!
Why would anyone still make something that's so inferior to what's current?
In short, because there is a market for it. A Rolex is a remarkable watch but there is a market for Timex.
What possible use could there be when switches are so much better.
* BIG SIGH * I keep saying "Context is everything" but you don't seem to take it in. Its like saying "An accelerator pedal is better than a horse whip", which is quite true of your context is that you are driving a Ferrari on a limited access highway with a posted minimum speed limit. But there are many palaces a Ferrari can't go that a horse (or mule or donkey) can. There are many places a off-rad FWD can't go, many places a mountain bike can't go, that a horse (or mule or donkey) can. The fact that YOU don't go on hiking trips in the high Andes or Himalayas, though deep gorges or places where the nearest gas station is 40,000km away though UN-drivable territory but there is forage for a horse (or mule or donkey) is quite beside the point. Other people do. I'm sure you can explain to use the fundamental difference between a switch and hub, and also describe the situations in which a switch is not just "better" and what its "better" at doing than a hub, but also a CONTEXT where the hub can do things that the switch can't and from there come up with the "Andes trek" whereby a hub is a "better" solution than the switch. If you can't, someone can.
At least whips still have a use with horses, as there hasn't been something better developed.
Ah, so you admit that (a) horses are still around and (b) horse whips are still around and hence (c) they are, in context, a superior technology. The real issue isn't whether horse whips are a better technology but that the production of horse whips needs to be efficient
That hub, from 1998 would be among the last of those devices, as by the mid 90s, switches were appearing. At the time, hubs were still cheaper, but that day has long gone.
So? Back in the 1880s horses where cheap. Back in around 1910 horses were cheaper than automobiles. That held true though WW1 and even into the beginning of WW2 before "production of hydrocarbon fuelled engines' ramped up. The fact that horses are expensive has not decreased their popularity IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. The issue is the knowledge and awareness of the people interested. When it comes to the hub/switch issue, most people, even most people in IT & networking, neither know nor care. Certainly most consumers of consumer grade devices, which I admit I have more of than I like, almost all with a LinkSys label, don't care and couldn't tell the difference anyway. Price and the length of the bullet list of features on the box matters more. The fact that many of those features are irrelevant to them is beside the point. This is about marketing, not utility and utilization.
And even a 10 Mb switch can outperform a 10 Mb hub by a wide margin
You care, I care, most consumers have other concerns. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 09:59 AM, Anton Aylward wrote: > On 06/04/2016 09:59 PM, James Knott wrote: >> On 06/04/2016 08:18 PM, Anton Aylward wrote: >>> So? My point is that, like buggy whips and horses, its still being >>> made and sold. >> Still being made? I doubt that. > Horses have a lifetime of what, 20-30 years? They are still around, so > they must "still be made" somewhere, somehow. > Outside the city, certainly Out West, there are a LOT of them. How many people still use horses as a means of transport? Outside of a few small groups, no one in the western world. How many still use them to plow fields? Same answer. People have horses for riding, as pets, for races, for show etc., but they are no longer the beasts of burden they were for centuries. On the other hand, hubs and switches have but one function, that is connecting devices together in a network. At the time, hubs were a big improvement over the old coax based networks they replaced. Back in those days, a single cable fault could bring down the entire network. That problem disappeared with hubs, but the performance remained the same. You still had a half duplex 10 Mb network, where the more devices connected, the greater the risk of collisions and declining throughput. That is the big improvement that switches bring, in that there are no collisions and switches can have full bandwidth between multiple pairs of devices. Switches also reduce "noise" on the wire, in that packets not intended for a device generally don't reach it. So, given the function that hubs and switches do, switches are vastly superior. I don't recall hearing of anyone keeping a hub or switch as a pet or racing one. > > Heck, here in the city there are horse and carriage rides; its a > speciality for weddings! And guess what? Those carriage drivers have > 'horse > whips'. maybe they are only for show, but they are there. > > A business guru once commented that today's horse whip manufacturers > must be VERY efficient to have stayed in business! > > >> Why would anyone still make something that's so inferior to what's >> current? > In short, because there is a market for it. > > A Rolex is a remarkable watch but there is a market for Timex. A Rolex is also a status item. > > > >> What possible use could there be when switches are so much better. > * BIG SIGH * > > I keep saying "Context is everything" but you don't seem to take it in. > > Its like saying "An accelerator pedal is better than a horse whip", > which is quite true of your context is that you are driving a Ferrari on > a limited access highway with a posted minimum speed limit. But there > are many palaces a Ferrari can't go that a horse (or mule or donkey) > can. There are many places a off-rad FWD can't go, many places a > mountain bike can't go, that a horse (or mule or donkey) can. > > The fact that YOU don't go on hiking trips in the high Andes or > Himalayas, though deep gorges or places where the nearest gas station is > 40,000km away though UN-drivable territory but there is forage for a > horse (or mule or donkey) is quite beside the point. Other people do. > > I'm sure you can explain to use the fundamental difference between a > switch and hub, and also describe the situations in which a switch is > not just "better" and what its "better" at doing than a hub, but also a > CONTEXT where the hub can do things that the switch can't and from there > come up with the "Andes trek" whereby a hub is a "better" solution than > the switch. > > If you can't, someone can. > I'd like to hear it. The only thing a hub can do that an unmanaged switch can't do is monitor traffic. But sticking a 10 Mb half duplex device into a modern network is going to kill performance. On the other hand, a managed switch, with port mirroring, is capable of monitoring at full wire speed. > > >> At least whips still have a use with horses, as there hasn't been >> something better developed. > Ah, so you admit that (a) horses are still around and (b) horse whips > are still around and hence (c) they are, in context, a superior > technology. > > The real issue isn't whether horse whips are a better technology but > that the production of horse whips needs to be efficient > > >> That hub, from 1998 would be among the >> last of those devices, as by the mid 90s, switches were appearing. >> At the time, hubs were still cheaper, but that day has long gone. > So? > Back in the 1880s horses where cheap. > Back in around 1910 horses were cheaper than automobiles. > That held true though WW1 and even into the beginning of WW2 before > "production of hydrocarbon fuelled engines' ramped up. > > The fact that horses are expensive has not decreased their popularity IN > CERTAIN CONTEXTS. > > The issue is the knowledge and awareness of the people interested. > > When it comes to the hub/switch issue, most people, even most people in > IT & networking, neither know nor care. Certainly most consumers of > consumer grade devices, which I admit I have more of than I like, almost > all with a LinkSys label, don't care and couldn't tell the difference > anyway. Price and the length of the bullet list of features on the box > matters more. The fact that many of those features are irrelevant to > them is beside the point. This is about marketing, not utility and > utilization. > >> And even a 10 Mb switch can outperform a 10 Mb hub by a wide margin > You care, I care, most consumers have other concerns. > In the networking world, performance is a key consideration. In my work, I see up to 10 Gb on copper and much higher on fibre. Further, if you are trying to resolve a problem, such as buffer overflow, using a hub may slow down the network so much that you hide the problem you're trying to solve. Are you aware of any company that still makes Ethernet hubs? I haven't seen a new one in many years. On the other hand, I recall one project I was working on, when someone was trying to find out why the network was so slow. It turned out someone had used a hub, instead of a switch. In this applications, a lot of computers were being reimaged via the network and the 10 Mb hub really killed performance. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 16:33, James Knott wrote:
I'd like to hear it. The only thing a hub can do that an unmanaged switch can't do is monitor traffic. But sticking a 10 Mb half duplex device into a modern network is going to kill performance. On the other hand, a managed switch, with port mirroring, is capable of monitoring at full wire speed.
Except that simultaneous speed or however is called, gets killed. Everything on all ports have to be copied onto a single port, so max total speed is that of that single port. Similar to having a gigabit hub.
Are you aware of any company that still makes Ethernet hubs? I haven't seen a new one in many years. On the other hand, I recall one project I was working on, when someone was trying to find out why the network was so slow. It turned out someone had used a hub, instead of a switch. In this applications, a lot of computers were being reimaged via the network and the 10 Mb hub really killed performance.
If the internet connection is a 1 MB ADSL (what I had not long ago), a 10 MB hub is fine as long as you only connect to internet, not between the computers in the house. Internet is slow, after all (in that house). However, as soon as you try to transfer a file between two computers, performance is terrible. Even a usb flash stick writes faster. I think that is what I had till recently, a 100Mb hub. Wish I could confirm. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 06/05/2016 10:52 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-06-05 16:33, James Knott wrote:
I'd like to hear it. The only thing a hub can do that an unmanaged switch can't do is monitor traffic. But sticking a 10 Mb half duplex device into a modern network is going to kill performance. On the other hand, a managed switch, with port mirroring, is capable of monitoring at full wire speed. Except that simultaneous speed or however is called, gets killed. Everything on all ports have to be copied onto a single port, so max total speed is that of that single port.
Similar to having a gigabit hub.
It's unlikely you'd set it up to monitor all ports. You'd be much more likely to monitor just one port, such as to a single computer, or perhaps the Internet connection. Even if you did try to monitor all ports it simply means you'd be overflowing the mirror port, not interfering with the traffic passing through the switch
Are you aware of any company that still makes Ethernet hubs? I haven't seen a new one in many years. On the other hand, I recall one project I was working on, when someone was trying to find out why the network was so slow. It turned out someone had used a hub, instead of a switch. In this applications, a lot of computers were being reimaged via the network and the 10 Mb hub really killed performance. If the internet connection is a 1 MB ADSL (what I had not long ago), a 10 MB hub is fine as long as you only connect to internet, not between the computers in the house. Internet is slow, after all (in that house).
This wasn't even involving the Internet. It was bringing disk images from a server to the computers being reimaged.
However, as soon as you try to transfer a file between two computers, performance is terrible. Even a usb flash stick writes faster.
I think that is what I had till recently, a 100Mb hub. Wish I could confirm.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/05/2016 10:52 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-06-05 16:33, James Knott wrote:
I'd like to hear it. The only thing a hub can do that an unmanaged switch can't do is monitor traffic. But sticking a 10 Mb half duplex device into a modern network is going to kill performance. On the other hand, a managed switch, with port mirroring, is capable of monitoring at full wire speed.
Except that simultaneous speed or however is called, gets killed. Everything on all ports have to be copied onto a single port, so max total speed is that of that single port.
Similar to having a gigabit hub.
Indeed! In fact the model Jeffrey described with the hub as a tap upstream means that the users communicating _across_ the switch downstream are not impacted. A "better" solution!
If the internet connection is a 1 MB ADSL (what I had not long ago), a 10 MB hub is fine as long as you only connect to internet, not between the computers in the house. Internet is slow, after all (in that house).
All this exchange, the Thee and Mee in this thread, are well informed, well experienced in this field players. More to the point, a;ll of us have a plethora of connected devices, most of which get simultaneous use. Yes, a hub must share its bandwidth with each and every one of its ports. So when only one PC is broadcasting, it will have access to the maximum available bandwidth. For Joe Sixpack consumer who has the one PC and one printer and is either browsing/reading mail or printing it doesn't matter if he has a hub or switch. He's not like us. It's only when he has to plug in AND SIMULTANEOUSLY USE many devices, possibly cascading them though the house, does this come into play. And even they it might not matter. Having a gigabit switch and a package such as the Rogers Ignite 60 James mentioned gives just 60M download. You need to more than triple what he's paying to get 1G download from Rogers. Maybe a lot of people do. I don't know any, not even those who, nominally, run a home business. I'm sure 'family' settings also justify simultaneous access, but does that mean that everyone in the house is simultaneously downloading movies? Heck, the way a lot of software works its in the background. More mail is being downloaded for me as I have this edit window open, and my editing isn't using bandwidth. Even if I was using webmail with a web based editor it wouldn't be using much bandwidth! It's all very well making assertions abased on one, perhaps corporate context, but there are a lot of, a lot more of, home users, and many of them are 'singletons". Context is Everything. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-06-05 17:21, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/05/2016 10:52 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Except that simultaneous speed or however is called, gets killed. Everything on all ports have to be copied onto a single port, so max total speed is that of that single port.
Similar to having a gigabit hub.
Indeed!
James points out that normally you mirror one socket, not all. And if you do, the switch does not slow down, but instead missed packets on the snooping socket.
And even they it might not matter. Having a gigabit switch and a package such as the Rogers Ignite 60 James mentioned gives just 60M download. You need to more than triple what he's paying to get 1G download from Rogers. Maybe a lot of people do. I don't know any, not even those who, nominally, run a home business.
Me. :-) I have a 300 Mb internet. A 100Mb switch slows me down, I need a gigabit one. This is done by the main telco here, which till recently was forbidden to compete with cable or fibre with the new telcos. Now that they are allowed, they entered the game with big hardware: minimum 100 MB, fibre to the individual home, not the block. And months after they improved to 300 Mb for about 7 euros more. Besides that, I do transfer big files (movies) from one computer to another, but unfortunately only one computer has a gigabyte socket. Laptops can not be improved.
I'm sure 'family' settings also justify simultaneous access, but does that mean that everyone in the house is simultaneously downloading movies?
It can happen. Just with two kids :-p
Heck, the way a lot of software works its in the background. More mail is being downloaded for me as I have this edit window open, and my editing isn't using bandwidth. Even if I was using webmail with a web based editor it wouldn't be using much bandwidth!
What I find very slow is the WiFi. Most days it is around 42 Mb, I think. I notice with the updates. It is terribly slow with Windows updates: it does nothing for minutes and minutes, then downloads a trickle. Previously I did not notice with my 1Mb ADSL, but now it is obvious that many sites are damn^H^H^H^Hdog slow.
It's all very well making assertions abased on one, perhaps corporate context, but there are a lot of, a lot more of, home users, and many of them are 'singletons".
Home users are becoming large users. We want things like video on demand, and be able to send our videos or photos to others instantly.
Context is Everything.
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:33 AM, James Knott
How many people still use horses as a means of transport? Outside of a few small groups, no one in the western world. How many still use them to plow fields? Same answer. People have horses for riding, as pets, for races, for show etc., but they are no longer the beasts of burden they were for centuries.
ranchers still use them to manage cows.. Not too long ago my dad was riding along with my uncle in a pick-up truck. They came across a cow with a large boil on one ear. My uncle (a rancher and a vet) said they had two choices: drive 10 miles or so to the barn and get a couple horses so they could pin down that cow and lance the boil, .... or see if he was a good enough vet to lance it from a distance (how would you do that?). ... ... ... turns out he replaced a horse with a rifle that day, but you have to be cantankerous old cuss to lance a boil with a bullet (and he is). Greg -- Greg Freemyer www.IntelligentAvatar.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Anton Aylward
On 06/04/2016 09:59 PM, James Knott wrote:
On 06/04/2016 08:18 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
So? My point is that, like buggy whips and horses, its still being made and sold.
Still being made? I doubt that.
Horses have a lifetime of what, 20-30 years? They are still around, so they must "still be made" somewhere, somehow. Outside the city, certainly Out West, there are a LOT of them.
Heck, here in the city there are horse and carriage rides; its a speciality for weddings! And guess what? Those carriage drivers have 'horse whips'. maybe they are only for show, but they are there.
A business guru once commented that today's horse whip manufacturers must be VERY efficient to have stayed in business!
Buggys and buggy whips are no longer a commodity in the US. As of a decade or two ago only high end buggy whip makers existed in the US. They strive for good efficiency, but the whips are mostly hand made. Horse whips (for jockeys?) are a different matter. They are for functional use. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Anton Aylward -
Carlos E. R. -
Greg Freemyer -
James Knott -
Jeffrey L. Taylor