From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 23 08:12:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79C010656D0 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 08:12:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703DC8FC17 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 08:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id p9N8CHVl035418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id p9N8CHMt035417; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fbsd81 ([192.168.200.81]) by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA11915; Sun, 23 Oct 11 01:10:34 PDT Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 08:09:19 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: kob6558@gmail.com Message-Id: <4ea42e1f.jwGZJ3vXBxYqD41h%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <4ea18916.IBAr0lF5RCzEYn6G%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4EA12D26.4020104@my.gd> <4ea2b29c.QmX94UmzdHW1HSBe%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20111022052952.GA2371@icarus.home.lan> <4ea2e874.XnQpdCknhYCB39Py%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd@jdc.parodius.com Subject: Re: 8.1 xl + dual-speed Netgear hub = yoyo X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 08:12:18 -0000 Kevin Oberman wrote: > Wow. it's 1985 again. O remember those 10/100 hubs. They were a > royal pain! > > If I remember right, they kept costs down by building in half of > a switch. Traffic from a 10 port to a 100 port was buffered, Speed conversion had to have been buffered in both directions. If trying to convert 100 to 10 unbuffered, only 10% of a packet could have been retransmitted (at 10) by the time the entire packet had been received (at 100). In the other direction, trying to send at 100 while receiving at 10 would have had 9 bit-times of gap for every live bit sent. > but there was no forwarding table and all packets were forwarded > to all ports. I always figured that's normal for a "hub" as opposed to a "switch". > I also remember that SOME hubs of that era had series problems if > the cable was too short. > > You mentioned using a short cable. Have you tried a longer one? > I seem to recall that 3 meters was the minimum, but it was so > long ago that my memory is a bit fuzzy. The first cable I used was about 1 meter, the second less than 2. I suppose I could try a longer one. The only minimum length restriction I _remember_ with Ethernet was the separation of transceivers on a 10Base-5 backbone cable (and, perhaps, a corresponding separation between tees on 10Base-2). I think it was to avoid having two impedance "bumps" within one bit propagation time of each other or some such.