From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 30 13:21:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17189 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:21:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from animaniacs.itribe.net (gatekeeper.itribe.net [209.49.144.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA17180 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:21:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamie@itribe.net) Received: from localhost (jamie@localhost) by animaniacs.itribe.net (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id QAA06057; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:21:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:21:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jamie Bowden To: "Jason C. Wells" cc: FreeBSD-chat Subject: Re: Diskless Workstations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Jason C. Wells wrote: > > > >No it can't. And NFS doesn't compete for latency. But many users > > >don't need that sort of filesystem throughput. > > > > If 100 Mbps => 80 Mbps then 100bT is as good or better than UW-SCSI on > > bandwidth. This is what I based my statement on. It appears that I have a > > concept error somehow. The numbers look right to me. Can someone steer me > > straight? > > SCSI measures throughput in Megabytes/s, not Megabits/s. And as a note I missed the first time, UW is 40MB/s, not 80MB/s. Jamie Bowden -- Systems Administrator, iTRiBE.net If we've got to fight over grep, sign me up. But boggle can go. -Ted Faber (on Hasbro's request for removal of /usr/games/boggle) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message