[rescue] I'm one happy geek

[Joshua D. Boyd]

OK, so here is what I was thinking (but didn't properly express).

Ethernet is at the low end 10 mbit, with 100mbit being fairly cheap.
USB is 11mbit.  OK, so I hook my scanner, keyboard, zip drive, web cam,
etc to my ethernet.  So far, fine.  I'm only down a 1mbit, but no big
deal.  So, I do the same thing on my sisters computer.  Again fine.  Now I
go to network the two machines.  Now what?  I either need 2 ethernet
interfaces for each machine, or I need a way to have some peripherals at
10mbit, but also to have at least one link at 100mbit.  That means that I
need a 10/100 hub at each machine.  This is starting to be pricey, but if
more ubiquitous, then it wouldn't be.

Now, here is the problem.  Each machine is contributing 10mbit of buz to
the network, in addition to what it might be trying to send to other
machines.  This buz can only be fixed by having each machines little
ethernet network get plugged into a switch to filter out the local noise.

Am I wrong here?

Of course, as I said, the problem goes away if you have two ethernet ports
(one for local periphs, and one for actually networking).  And having two
ethernet ports I guess isn't that much different from an eithernet and a
USB port.  Still, if we went this way we would still need significant new
software working out how the ethernet devices announce themselves.  

So, I guess in the end, the only major advantage left to USB is that some
devices wouldn't need an extra power source (I don't think that USB wacoms
require external power, nor, I think, do most USB hubs, mice, and
keyboards).

--
Joshua Boyd

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Brian Dunbar wrote:

> >>-----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Boyd [mailto:jdboyd at cs.millersville.edu]
> 
> Is ethernet really adequate for such devices?  I saw USB more as replacing
> PS/2, ADB, Serial, parallel, and to a lesser extent SCSI for low bandwidth
> devices.  
> 
> With ethernet, you'd have to buy large switches, which aren't that cheap.
> 
> Joshua Boyd<<
> 
> Um, you don't *need* switches with ethernet - it works / worked fine on
> small networks w/ NICs only for a long long time.  So did ARCnet for that
> matter.  The switches/hubs/etc only come into play when you plug nets
> together.
> 
> Which makes me wonder now - why wasn't Ethernet (or ARCnet) adopted for the
> horde of peripherals littering my desk?  Ethernet NICs are cheap, and
> imbedded into Mice/Scanners/Etc. could have been cheaper yet . . . 
> 
> Why NOT a desktop Ethernet LAN?  Anyone?
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>