From owner-freebsd-security Sun Aug 22 14:46:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E092C15586 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 14:46:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8120E1C0E; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4C13826; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:47:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: Chris Dillon Cc: Wes Peters , Cliff Skolnick , Bigby Findrake , jay d , "Rodney W. Grimes" , Evren Yurtesen , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: multiple machines in the same network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Chris Dillon wrote: > Gotcha I've found by looking at the specs is that it only has a > 3.8Gbit/sec backplane. This is only enough to keep 19 100mbit ports > saturated at full duplex, but you're also paying less money for this > 40-port switch than most other halfway-decent 24-port switches. I > wonder if local switching takes place on each of the "blades" > (expansion modules). I still think its worth the money even with the > limited backplane. That's more backplane then my (more expensive) baystack 450s can handle. -- - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message