Rob Townley schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:
Rob Townley schrieb:
Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLinksys while another hates HP. Let's get a more scientific approach. Switch performance still depends on the NICS in the client machines.
Uhm. No. Not any longer, AFAIK. At least, once you leave the SOHO region (AFAIK, the OP wanted >= 48 ports. I don't want to work in such a home-office, really...).
There are 48 port SOHO priced switches nowadays.
I see your point. I only imagined the "home office" that would need 48 ports ;-)
i am often not very impressed by network performance and need standardized benchmarks to figure out if there may be an issue at the NIC driver, switch or on up to a virus shield. It was either a ~2004 Dell Power magazine or ~2004 Network World article that mentioned that 3Com NICs didn't perform well with Cisco switches and vice versa.
Hm. I think I saw something like that (I was at a site that used Catalyst 6500-switches to connect desktops - in 2001). Autosensing was useless...
They also wrote about other vendors and i don't remember any of them performing extremely well across vendor. Now that NICs are a commodity, the problem could be worse.
Here, autosensing sometimes doesn't work. Then, you've got to set it fixed on both the client and the switch-port.
What "performance data" are you referring to?
What you gathered in the past from other switches on your LAN - and what you read on the internet ;-)) I'm not a networking-guy (switches are done by someone else here).
Rainer