From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  1 08:49:19 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C321065671
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 08:49:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au)
Received: from angel.comcen.com.au (angel.comcen.com.au [203.23.236.69])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E0C8FC19
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2008 08:49:18 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au)
Received: from [192.168.0.198] (202-172-126-254.cpe.qld-1.comcen.com.au
	[202.172.126.254])
	by angel.comcen.com.au (8.13.4/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m319lGTO051871
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 19:47:26 +1000 (EST)
From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
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>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:48:25 +1000
Message-Id: <1207039705.30698.48.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-3.fc8) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-comcen-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-comcen-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-comcen-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
	score=-16.426, required 4, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80,
	AWL 0.37, BAYES_00 -15.00)
X-comcen-MailScanner-From: rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au
Subject: [OT] Re: SCSI network
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:49:19 -0000


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.