Re: [squid-users] squid performance

Y2K copyright and talking about Ethernet in general. Author probably made
an incorrect generalization.

Thanks for clearing it up. I hate it when I quote wrong information. I
should write McGraw Hill a letter.

Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>; "Squid-Users"
<squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid performance

> Was it talking
> 10BaseT/Thinnet aka 10Base2/100MBit Half duplex or 100MBit full duplex?
>
> the collision domain characteristics for a network wired with each of
> the above topologies various significantly.
> 10Base2 did have a peak performance of ~ 37% of the transimission rate.
> However 10BaseT, 100 half duplex and 100 full duplewx all make
> significant improvements - the specification for interframe gap, timing,
> collision detection are all different from the "original" ieee 802.3
> 10base 2 spec. (Don't aske me the details, I'd have to go look em up
> :} )
>
> An example: the collision rate on a 100Mbit full duplex connection
> should be 0% at 96Mbit data transfer or receieve, or even 192Mbit
> combined data rate (in and out).
>
> The cisco book you had, may be dated, or talking about a specific media
> type.
>
> Rob
Received on Fri Jun 08 2001 - 13:14:06 MDT