Rob Townley schrieb: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner <rainer at 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