Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:03:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Lars Erik Gullerud <lerik@nolink.net> To: "Brian A. Seklecki" <lavalamp@spiritual-machines.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dell PowerEdge 850 bge(4) RELENG_6 (WAS: Re: bge(4) problem) Message-ID: <20060817102123.O23408@electra.nolink.net> In-Reply-To: <20060816191152.J69548@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> References: <43767.150.101.159.26.1140420612.squirrel@mailbox.TU-Berlin.DE> <20060720104238.L8726@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> <20060807100622.GY96644@cell.sick.ru> <20060810160126.E55918@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> <20060816191152.J69548@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Brian A. Seklecki wrote: > If I leave it in auto-media, it comes up at 100/half duplex, which leads to > unusable performance. 100/half duplex is technically impossible anyway. I noticed this claim earlier in the thread, just to clear up the apparent confusion, 100/half is not just technically possible, but (was) quite widely used. Before switches became as cheap and widespread as they are now, 100Mbit Hubs were not uncommon. Even 1000/Half is technically valid (and gigabit hubs do exist, allthough they never became very popular). The first standard to abandon support for half-duplex CSMA/CD operation is 10-gig Ethernet. /leg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817102123.O23408>