Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:48:25 +1000 From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: [OT] Re: SCSI network Message-ID: <1207039705.30698.48.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20080331164038.T2059@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20080329131542.H80112@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080331033417.GH28690@dan.emsphone.com> <1206940957.30698.11.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20080331164038.T2059@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:41 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> unmanaged switch will work much better :) > >> > > > > I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease > > of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong > > on the exact figures, but the gigabit is still faster). > > > 320MB is 2560Mb not 320Mb > > 160MB/s is above gigabit ethernet speed - half duplex, but when traffic > goes mostly one direction - it's not a problem. > Learn something new everyday... May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi) > > > Setup a small private network between the machines in question and > > everything would be happy. > > of course - but just asked as i have a bunch of unused U160 controllers > and cables. > Fair enough- I'd probably do the same.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1207039705.30698.48.camel>