Gigabit ethernet confusion.
Alan Browne
Under "About this Mac", "Hardware", "Ethernet Cards" I see the following:
[ Marvell Yukon Gigabit Adapter 88E8055 Singleport Copper SA: ]
Which implies that my iMac will work on a 1 Gb/s Ethernet with such a
router. Right?
However, under "Network", "Ethernet" the "Ethernet" settings are shown as:
Ethernet:
MAC Address: 00:....
Media Options: Full Duplex, Flow Control
Media Subtype: 100baseTX
Does the 100baseTX simply reflect the current running state?
eg: I can (when I get to it) install a 1 Gb/s ethernet/router/external disk?
Thanks.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Dan wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> A bit of confusion.
>>
>> Under "About this Mac", "Hardware", "Ethernet Cards" I see the following:
>> [ Marvell Yukon Gigabit Adapter 88E8055 Singleport Copper SA: ]
>>
>> Which implies that my iMac will work on a 1 Gb/s Ethernet with such a
>> router. Right?
>>
>> However, under "Network", "Ethernet" the "Ethernet" settings are shown as:
>> Ethernet:
>> MAC Address: 00:....
>> Media Options: Full Duplex, Flow Control
>> Media Subtype: 100baseTX
>>
>> Does the 100baseTX simply reflect the current running state?
>
> machines, but still running a 100 router.
Same here - gigabit Macs, cabled network all over the house with gigabit
switch....
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Harris
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
Yes, it indicates the type of ethernet connection the Mac was able
to establish.
And I once had a Gigabit capable Mac, and a Gigabit capable
switch, but I could only get 100baseT. Turns out I a bad ethernet
cable. So *ALL* 3 components need to support Gigabit before the
Mac will report you have a 1000baseT connection.
Kevin McMurtrie
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
That's the current state. See if the "Advanced" section of the Network
preferences has a menu option to manually select gigabit. (Leave it on
'Automatic') If it has it, upgrading to a gigabit switch and Cat 5e or
Cat 6 cables will give you gigabit LAN speeds. Jumbo Frames are helpful
too but getting everything on the LAN to support it can be a pain.
--
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Warren Oates
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
> That's the current state. See if the "Advanced" section of the Network
> preferences has a menu option to manually select gigabit. (Leave it on
> 'Automatic') If it has it, upgrading to a gigabit switch and Cat 5e or
> Cat 6 cables will give you gigabit LAN speeds. Jumbo Frames are helpful
> too but getting everything on the LAN to support it can be a pain.
Mine just defaulted to gigabit through the switch in my router. I tried
playing with the jumbo frames, and it went flakey, so I left it alone.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
Alan Browne
Thanks,
My planning is:
New 1 GB Ethernet card for the XP box,
New 1 GB router with WiFi
New 2 TB network based storage, 1 Gb/s ethernet.
Cables for the above.
I currently get Mac-PC transfers of about 90 Mb/s actual on 100baseTX,
I'd hope to increase that to at least 500 Mb/s or better - new HD on the
PC should support that, not too sure about the iMac.
I'll retain the 'old' cables for router to cable-modem and printer.
Warren Oates
Bob Harris <nospam....@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:
> And I once had a Gigabit capable Mac, and a Gigabit capable
> switch, but I could only get 100baseT. Turns out I a bad ethernet
> cable. So *ALL* 3 components need to support Gigabit before the
> Mac will report you have a 1000baseT connection.
Well a bad cable will always cause problems, but I have a gigabit
switch, connects two MacPros (a tower and a book) with gigabit and an
old G4 that only supports 100baseT; the two Pros get gigabit. It's a
smart switch. And my wireless router.
Kevin McMurtrie
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
I just got 50MB/sec between a new Mac Mini Server internal RAID and an
old Mac Pro internal RAID using 'dd' on a AFP volume over gigabit with
jumbo frames.
Phil Stripling
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I'll retain the 'old' cables for router to cable-modem and printer.
I'd want to run that by someone more knowledgeable than I am. It may be
that packets on slower cables can slow up the network as a whole. And
non-gigabit cables don't work at gigabit speeds - I've got 100BaseT
cables in my house, and they won't support gigabit speeds over those
wires.
Tom Stiller
Phil Stripling <ra...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
What are "slow cables"? Gigabit ethernet requires all four pairs whereas
migabit and slower connections only require two pairs in the cable.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Alan Browne
That would be acceptable (400 Mb/s) - I didn't know about jumbo frames,
I see they're up to 9000 B/block.
I hope, that being the case, that the PC (WinXP), its new card, the Mac
and the new drive all support it.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
Shouldn't affect the slow side at all (eg: where it was and will remain
100 or less it will still function at those speed - eg cable-modem and
printer). The router will set those ports to 10 or 100 as required.
Only between points with 1 Gb traffic will the higher standard
(1000BASE-CX) cable be needed. (router to external drives and to both
computers).
David Empson
> In article <kNydnWp8cefjvcPW...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'll retain the 'old' cables for router to cable-modem and printer.
>
> I'd want to run that by someone more knowledgeable than I am. It may be
> that packets on slower cables can slow up the network as a whole.
Depends on how the network is configured.
Assuming there are no hubs involved (switches everywhere), then it is
down to the design of the specific switch. Some of them have separate
internal networks for different speed devices, or dedicated bandwidth
for each port on the switch which allows all ports to operate
simultaneously at their maximum speed.
If all switches involved are of this type, then data being transferred
over a 100Base-TX connection between computers A and B won't impact on
an independent Gigabit transfer between C and D, as long as the data
doesn't have to travel over the same cables.
For a three computer arrangement like this:
Server ----gigabit---- switch ----gigabit---- A
|
------100Base-TX---- B
If A and B are both actively transferring data to or from the server, A
will probably get better performance than it would if B was also on a
Gigabit connection, simply because the packet rate to/from B is limited,
giving A a greater share of the network bandwidth. B can't use jumbo
frames, which will limit overall performance.
The server will send packets to the switch at gigabit speeds for both A
and B. The switch will then transmit the packet at the appropriate speed
to each computer (100Base-TX for B, Gigabit for A). The other direction
is the same.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Phil Stripling
Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What are "slow cables"?
Sorry, I didn't mean to get technical.*
> Gigabit ethernet requires all four pairs whereas
> migabit and slower connections only require two pairs in the cable.
My house is not wired with Cat5e, and the wiring won't move bits at
gigabit speed. Between computers connected to my gigabit switch I get
gibabits, but between computers on the house LAN, I get 100BaseT
speeds, according to the lights on the switch that indicate how fast
the connections are.
*It's a _joke_! I'm kidding.