Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:13:47 -0700 From: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> To: "Philip J. Koenig" <pjklist@ekahuna.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, William Carrel <william.a@carrel.org> Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Message-ID: <20011227111347.B6362@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <3C2A416C.12065.106F4F3@localhost>; from pjklist@ekahuna.com on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:30:20PM -0800 References: <3C2A1786.17075.63462D@localhost> <C4A5672A-FA7D-11D5-A21C-003065D5E9A4@carrel.org> <3C2A416C.12065.106F4F3@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:30:20PM -0800, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > On 26 Dec 2001, at 19:56, William Carrel boldly uttered: >> Using switch settings to obtain this sort of configuration/protection is >> at best crude. Try dummynet(4) and/or some QoS capable network >> hardware. > > The switches and NICs for many years already should have the inherent > ability to run locked at 10Mbps. Indeed they push this as a > "feature". Why should I go spend outrageous sums on overpriced "QoS" > hardware or install an entirely new box for this purpose when the > existing switches and NICs should already do what I need? I too support hierarchical bandwidth topologies. Unless you're banging around medical images or such, 10Mbps to the desktop is plenty. Then connect the switches/hubs together at 100Mbps, and use gigabit between any core routers. That way, no one user can saturate a segment. Happier users, happier me. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.com DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011227111347.B6362>