how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to fifty nine
Re: 38 Mbps x 8 That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. | | |
|
| said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps.
Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. | |
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | said by fifty nine:said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps. Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. Do you mean 100Mbps? I assure you, a Linux nor Mac desktop will pull over 800Mbps (100MBps) on the same hardware as Windows.
Aside from that, Mac or Linux is no more capable than Windows and you will not see a significant throughput advantage. I see about 500Mbps to my little dinky Windows Home Server with a Celeron Dual Core and standard SATA 1st gen hard drives. I can pull from the server close to that as well on my Vista desktop and over 300Mbps to my laptop. My Linux (CentOS) desktop has slightly lower performance than my Windows machines.
My Dell 2950 servers with 15k RAID-10 SAS arrays can push close to what you're talking about, but even then a single server can't saturate a 1Gbps link ... and I have Linux and Windows servers on the same hardware.
Irregardless of all that off-topic nonsense the vast majority of people at home still run 802.11b or 802.11g and until they upgrade to something faster, will never see more than 11Mbps-15Mbps anyway.
To add to the overall thread, regardless of what AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner would have you believe, there is no bandwidth apocalypse and Cable is not in trouble any time soon. FiOS serves a VERY SMALL portion of the Northeast and tiny areas scattered elsewhere. People seem to forget Time Warner and Comcast are more worried about AT&T than Verizon. And AT&T frankly brought a knife (U-Verse) to a gun-fight. DOCSIS 3.0 will eat U-Verse for lunch.
So we'll continue to see what we've seen so far. Time Warner and Comcast will respond to FiOS where they have to with limited DOCSIS 3.0 deployments and no-caps. They'll make up this investment by capping, throttling, and squeeezing every bit (pun intended) of bandwidth from the current plant before upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0. As it stands right now, Cable has the advantage over U-Verse and unless a drastic shift in technology happens, with DOCSIS 3.0 they will stay competitive for many, many years to come against FiOS.
Would the world be a better place if everyone had 1Gbps fiber to their house? I think so, absolutely. But unless the government steps in, private business will not deploy that type of technology for 10+ years. The financials just don't make sense. | |
|
