Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:39:35 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Barclay <dmlb@ragnet.demon.co.uk> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, crypt0genic <crypt0genic@ecad.org>, Bill Paul <wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu>, Vincent Poy <vince@venus.GAIANET.NET> Subject: Re: poor ethernet performance? Message-ID: <XFMail.990717113935.dmlb@computer.my.domain> In-Reply-To: <199907162355.QAA22402@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-Jul-99 Matthew Dillon wrote: > > In regards to audio/video verses ethernet, you have to remember that > audio and video are *analog*, not digital. The cable quality matters > for analog, but it only needs to be "good enough" for digital. If you > don't get any bit errors (and you shouldn't) then a better cable is not > going to make a difference. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon And you seen the nice square waves of 100Mb or !Gb ether on a line then? The techniques used for transmitting 100Mb/s down copper are certainly not digital. Pulse shaping, line estimation, ISI removal are all analogue! The cable itself is less improtant than the impedance matching at connectors and bends in the cable. Duncan --- ________________________________________________________________________ Duncan Barclay | God smiles upon the little children, dmlb@ragnet.demon.co.uk | the alcoholics, and the permanently stoned. ________________________________________________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990717113935.dmlb>