From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Feb 12 08:04:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15197 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:04:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.ruhrgebiet.individual.net (in-ruhr.ruhr.de [141.39.224.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15188 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:04:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bs@devnull.ruhr.de) Received: (from admin@localhost) by mail.ruhrgebiet.individual.net (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5) with UUCP id QAA17172; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from rm.devnull.ruhr.de [192.168.22.75] by devnull.ruhr.de with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0y30no-0000RF-00; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:43:52 +0100 Received: from bs by rm.devnull.ruhr.de with local (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0y30sN-0000Fp-00; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:48:35 +0100 To: "Joe" Cc: Subject: Re: Fw: FreeBSD firewall questions References: <01bd377a$aaa63900$b221dccc@subzero.thebestisp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Benedikt Stockebrand Date: 12 Feb 1998 16:48:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Joe"'s message of "Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:54:22 -0600" Message-ID: <8767mkbz8s.fsf@devnull.ruhr.de> Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Joe" writes: > IF YOU DO NOT NEED TO CONNECT MORE THAN TWO COMPUTERS DO NOT USE A HUB! (did > the caps get your 'tension?) the reasons are simple 1 a hub costs money Point taken. But OTOH a hub lets you plug in a third box into that physical network, and in some situations that can be quite handy. Anyway, I didn't say that a hub was a "better" solution than a null-hub cable. > and > if you were into spending money you wouldn't be using freebsd you'd be > dealing (and spending a fortune for the same or less effect) with a > Microsoft or comperable product. Nothing compares to M$... ok, let's stop this... > And second you can't expect to get better > that 60%(+-) ie: 6Mbps rather than 10Mbps throughput so you are paying for > latency and collissions..Just my two cents.. This depends on the bandwidth your outbound connection has. Here in Krautland a 2Mbit/s line is still pretty much upper standard, so under these circumstances even a lowly 10 Mbit/s 10Base2 or 10BaseT wouldn't be seriously loaded. As far as latency goes: How much latency is caused by a hub (opposed to a switch, which is too expensive anyway) and will it be noticeable if all data is subsequently sent across a long distance connection? Ben -- Ben(edikt)? Stockebrand Runaway ping.de Admin---Never Ever Trust Old Friends My name and email address are not to be added to any list used for advertising purposes. Any sender of unsolicited advertisement e-mail to this address im- plicitly agrees to pay a DM 500 fee to the recipient for proofreading services. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message