Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #4711 > unrolled thread

What networked filesystem to use

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  What networked filesystem to use Harold Johanssen <noemail@please.net> - 2020-11-25 18:00 +0000
    Re: What networked filesystem to use Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-11-25 20:17 +0200
    Re: What networked filesystem to use Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2020-11-25 13:45 -0500
    Re: What networked filesystem to use Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-11-25 12:20 -0700
    Re: What networked filesystem to use Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2020-11-25 12:21 -0700
    Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-25 20:32 +0100
      Re: What networked filesystem to use William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-11-25 21:19 +0000
    Re: What networked filesystem to use Harold Johanssen <noemail@please.net> - 2020-11-25 20:26 +0000
      Re: What networked filesystem to use Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2020-11-25 17:21 -0500
      Re: What networked filesystem to use "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-11-26 00:04 +0100
        Re: What networked filesystem to use Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-11-26 07:27 +0000
          Re: What networked filesystem to use William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-11-27 16:21 +0000
            Re: What networked filesystem to use "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-11-27 20:22 +0100
        Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-26 09:22 +0100
          Re: What networked filesystem to use Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-11-27 22:37 -0800
            Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-28 16:22 +0100
              Re: What networked filesystem to use Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-11-28 12:37 -0800
                Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-29 13:26 +0100
                  Re: What networked filesystem to use Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-11-29 10:44 -0800
                    Re: What networked filesystem to use William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-11-29 19:33 +0000
                      Re: What networked filesystem to use Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-11-29 13:59 -0800
                    Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-29 22:02 +0100
                      Re: What networked filesystem to use Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-11-29 14:01 -0800
                        Re: What networked filesystem to use David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-29 23:39 +0100
    Re: What networked filesystem to use "Tristan B. Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu> - 2021-01-18 14:04 +0200
      Re: What networked filesystem to use Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2021-01-18 17:57 +0000
    Re: What networked filesystem to use William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2021-01-18 18:21 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#4711 — What networked filesystem to use

	I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk 
space, but I am in a network with access to a server with all but 
infinite amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to 
carry out lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk 
space. I therefore have to access disk space from the server above over 
the 100 Mb LAN.

	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the 
best performance under the circumstances described?

	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS 
and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other networked 
filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4712

On 25.11.20 20.00, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> 	I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk
> space, but I am in a network with access to a server with all but
> infinite amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to
> carry out lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk
> space. I therefore have to access disk space from the server above over
> the 100 Mb LAN.
> 
> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the
> best performance under the circumstances described?
> 
> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS
> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other networked
> filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.


Both SSHFS and WebDAV have extra protocol overhead compared to
NFS, whch is the de facto standard on Unix family systems.

-- 

-TV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4713

Harold Johanssen <noemail@please.net> writes:

> 	I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk 
> space, but I am in a network with access to a server with all but 
> infinite amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to 
> carry out lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk 
> space. I therefore have to access disk space from the server above over 
> the 100 Mb LAN.
>
> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the 
> best performance under the circumstances described?
>
> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS 
> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other networked 
> filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.

What throughput are you getting?  You might just be seeing the
limitation of the LAN.  100 Mb is pretty slow compared with disk
speeds.

Scott
-- 
Scott Hemphill	hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying.  This is falling, with style."  -- Buzz Lightyear

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4714

On 11/25/20 11:00 AM, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> I have tried with NFS, and it is not great.

Did you use NFS's default parameters?  Or did you try any tuning?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4715

On 11/25/20 11:00 AM, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> I have tried with NFS, and it is not great.

What version of NFS?

What protocol was it running over?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4716

On 25/11/2020 19:00, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> 	I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk 
> space, but I am in a network with access to a server with all but 
> infinite amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to 
> carry out lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk 
> space. I therefore have to access disk space from the server above over 
> the 100 Mb LAN.
> 

That's going to limit your bandwidth to about 10 MB per second.  Is that
your bottleneck?

> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the 
> best performance under the circumstances described?
> 
> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS 
> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other networked 
> filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.
> 

sshfs will encrypt your traffic (usually).  If you have slow processors
to go with your slow LAN, that might be a bottleneck.  But if your
processors are fast enough for that not to be a problem, then you can
use the "-C" flag to sshfs to get compression in the traffic - for
compressible files, that will let you get higher bandwidth than the LAN
supports directly.

But the obvious solution to increased speed is to join the 21st century
and upgrade to 1Gb Ethernet, if that is practical for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4718

On 2020-11-25, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 25/11/2020 19:00, Harold Johanssen wrote:
>> 	I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk 
>> space, but I am in a network with access to a server with all but 
>> infinite amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to 
>> carry out lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk 
>> space. I therefore have to access disk space from the server above over 
>> the 100 Mb LAN.
>> 
>
> That's going to limit your bandwidth to about 10 MB per second.  Is that
> your bottleneck?
>
>> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the 
>> best performance under the circumstances described?
>> 
>> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS 
>> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other networked 
>> filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.
>> 
>
> sshfs will encrypt your traffic (usually).  If you have slow processors
> to go with your slow LAN, that might be a bottleneck.  But if your
> processors are fast enough for that not to be a problem, then you can
> use the "-C" flag to sshfs to get compression in the traffic - for
> compressible files, that will let you get higher bandwidth than the LAN
> supports directly.
>
> But the obvious solution to increased speed is to join the 21st century
> and upgrade to 1Gb Ethernet, if that is practical for you.

Or buy a big disk to attach to your local system. If you can, go for
solid state disk, but if not get a 1TB or 2TB disk and use it.

100Mb is pretty slow compared to anything local. (And in practice you
will probably only get 50 or 30Mb/s)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4717

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:00:36 +0000, Harold Johanssen wrote:

> I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk space,
> but I am in a network with access to a server with all but infinite
> amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to carry out
> lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk space. I
> therefore have to access disk space from the server above over the 100
> Mb LAN.
> 
> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the
> best performance under the circumstances described?
> 
> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS
> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other
> networked filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.

	Thanks to all who replied. I have tried to do some fine tuning in 
my NSF settings, as described in a number of places in the net. As for my 
network - well, I'd love to be able to have a 1 Gb network, but that is 
not going to happen in the short term, unfortunately.

	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the 
performance of different network filesystems with the networking 
limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with 
comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4719

Harold Johanssen <noemail@please.net> writes:

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:00:36 +0000, Harold Johanssen wrote:
>
>> I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk space,
>> but I am in a network with access to a server with all but infinite
>> amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to carry out
>> lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk space. I
>> therefore have to access disk space from the server above over the 100
>> Mb LAN.
>> 
>> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the
>> best performance under the circumstances described?
>> 
>> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS
>> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other
>> networked filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.
>
> 	Thanks to all who replied. I have tried to do some fine tuning in 
> my NSF settings, as described in a number of places in the net. As for my 
> network - well, I'd love to be able to have a 1 Gb network, but that is 
> not going to happen in the short term, unfortunately.
>
> 	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the 
> performance of different network filesystems with the networking 
> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with 
> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.

I no longer have a 100Mb network, but my memory is that I got similar
proportional throughput that I now get from my 1Gb network.

I used the command:

dd if=<bigNetworkFile> of=/dev/null bs=4k

and the dd summary line was:

7655663616 bytes (7.7 GB) copied, 65.8552 s, 116 MB/s

If you take the file size and divide by the time and multiply by 8
bits/byte, you get a read throughput of almost exactly 930Mb, or 93% of
the unattainable maximum.  I haven't done anything fancy like trying to
use jumbo frames.  This is using nfs version 4.

It's possible that with some work, you might do (a little) better with
sshfs.

https://www.admin-magazine.com/HPC/Articles/Sharing-Data-with-SSHFS

Scott
-- 
Scott Hemphill	hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying.  This is falling, with style."  -- Buzz Lightyear

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4720

On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:00:36 +0000, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> 
>> I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk space,
>> but I am in a network with access to a server with all but infinite
>> amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to carry out
>> lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk space. I
>> therefore have to access disk space from the server above over the 100
>> Mb LAN.
>>
>> 	My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the
>> best performance under the circumstances described?
>>
>> 	I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS
>> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other
>> networked filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.
> 
> 	Thanks to all who replied. I have tried to do some fine tuning in
> my NSF settings, as described in a number of places in the net. As for my
> network - well, I'd love to be able to have a 1 Gb network, but that is
> not going to happen in the short term, unfortunately.
> 
> 	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
> performance of different network filesystems with the networking
> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with
> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.

Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small 
files? Random r/w access? That's the worst. Just write a file and send 
it whole? The later could be cached locally and then sent slowly while 
the process is doing calculations.

I would simply test it.

sshfs should be slower, as it uses encryption (more CPU load). But it 
can also use compression. So, test it.


Is a double network interface an option? Just a wild idea. No, I have 
never done that.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4721

On Wed, 2020-11-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:
...
>> 	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
>> performance of different network filesystems with the networking
>> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with
>> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.
>
> Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small 
> files? Random r/w access? That's the worst.

But (I think) it could also be the scenario where you gain the most by
offloading the actual disk I/O to another machine, which perhaps has
disks with better random access, and more cache.

(Not that I know anything about this -- I've always managed to avoid
networked file systems.  I use rsync or Git to make the data show up
in a local file system.)

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4725

On 2020-11-26, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:
> ...
>>> 	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
>>> performance of different network filesystems with the networking
>>> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with
>>> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.
>>
>> Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small 
>> files? Random r/w access? That's the worst.
>
> But (I think) it could also be the scenario where you gain the most by
> offloading the actual disk I/O to another machine, which perhaps has
> disks with better random access, and more cache.

network speeds are (always?) slower than disk bus access speeds. Thus i
wold expect [ local<-> network<->remote computer <-> disk] to be slower than 
[local computer <-> disk.]
>
> (Not that I know anything about this -- I've always managed to avoid
> networked file systems.  I use rsync or Git to make the data show up
> in a local file system.)
>
> /Jorgen
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4726

On 27/11/2020 17.21, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2020-11-26, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-11-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 	My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
>>>> performance of different network filesystems with the networking
>>>> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with
>>>> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.
>>>
>>> Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small 
>>> files? Random r/w access? That's the worst.
>>
>> But (I think) it could also be the scenario where you gain the most by
>> offloading the actual disk I/O to another machine, which perhaps has
>> disks with better random access, and more cache.
> 
> network speeds are (always?) slower than disk bus access speeds. Thus i
> wold expect [ local<-> network<->remote computer <-> disk] to be slower than 
> [local computer <-> disk.]

Hum.

Server side has fast SSD disk and gigabyte Ethernet (let's be modest,
not fibre). Client side is laptop with rotating rust disk, could be 5400
rpm.

In this case, NFS may have faster access speed :-D

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4722

On 26/11/2020 00:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:00:36 +0000, Harold Johanssen wrote:
>>
>>> I have a setup in which my system has a limited amount of disk space,
>>> but I am in a network with access to a server with all but infinite
>>> amounts of disk space available. I need to use my system to carry out
>>> lengthy software compilations, the kind that takes lots of disk space. I
>>> therefore have to access disk space from the server above over the 100
>>> Mb LAN.
>>>
>>>     My question would be, What filesystem is likely to deliver the
>>> best performance under the circumstances described?
>>>
>>>     I have tried with NFS, and it is not great. I will try next SSHFS
>>> and WebDAV, but if anybody has experience with these, and other
>>> networked filesystems, your feedback would be much appreciated.
>>
>>     Thanks to all who replied. I have tried to do some fine tuning in
>> my NSF settings, as described in a number of places in the net. As for my
>> network - well, I'd love to be able to have a 1 Gb network, but that is
>> not going to happen in the short term, unfortunately.
>>
>>     My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
>> performance of different network filesystems with the networking
>> limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with
>> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.
> 
> Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small
> files? Random r/w access? That's the worst. Just write a file and send
> it whole? The later could be cached locally and then sent slowly while
> the process is doing calculations.
> 
> I would simply test it.
> 
> sshfs should be slower, as it uses encryption (more CPU load). But it
> can also use compression. So, test it.

Testing it is the only way to know, as the results depend on the cpu
speed (especially on the sending end) and the compressibility of the files.

> 
> 
> Is a double network interface an option? Just a wild idea. No, I have
> never done that.
> 

Channel bundling can help on a good network setup, but it's unlikely to
help if he has cheapo or ancient switches, as he must have, since he is
on 100 Mb - they won't get enough parallel port-to-port transfers to
give significant improvements in throughput.  (And if he has hubs,
rather than switches, it certainly won't help.)

Still, it's always fun to play with that kind of thing if you have the
hardware for it.  You might not get much of a speed increase, but you
might learn something new and interesting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4731

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 11/26/20 12:22 AM, David Brown wrote:

> 
> Channel bundling can help on a good network setup, but it's unlikely to
> help if he has cheapo or ancient switches, as he must have, since he is
> on 100 Mb - they won't get enough parallel port-to-port transfers to
> give significant improvements in throughput.  (And if he has hubs,
> rather than switches, it certainly won't help.)
> 

It's a lot easier to upgrade a switch than to upgrade the wires in the
walls. One can have a modern switch and old wiring. I'd not be so sure
the person has "ancient" switches.

The odds of encountering someone with a hub is almost nil. I remember
when the first consumer switches hit the market and that was more than
20 years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4735

On 28/11/2020 07:37, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 11/26/20 12:22 AM, David Brown wrote:
> 
>>
>> Channel bundling can help on a good network setup, but it's unlikely to
>> help if he has cheapo or ancient switches, as he must have, since he is
>> on 100 Mb - they won't get enough parallel port-to-port transfers to
>> give significant improvements in throughput.  (And if he has hubs,
>> rather than switches, it certainly won't help.)
>>
> 
> It's a lot easier to upgrade a switch than to upgrade the wires in the
> walls. One can have a modern switch and old wiring. I'd not be so sure
> the person has "ancient" switches.

I think that sort of thing varies, and I'd be sceptical of guessing
which is most likely.  Only the OP can tell us what applies in his case.
 But I'd be surprised to find many cases where you have old wiring that
can't be replaced, good new switches that support channel bundling, and
where you have multiple old lines that can be used for bundling.

It's also worth noting that old wires can often support higher speeds.
Ethernet cables are rated for a particular speed and length - usually
110m.  Very often, you have much shorter cables than 110m, and these can
sometimes (but not always) support higher speeds than their rating might
suggest.  You might have to be careful about details, such as minimising
the length of the final segment (the bit from the socket in the wall to
the computer in the office).

Again, we know very little about the OP's setup.

> 
> The odds of encountering someone with a hub is almost nil. I remember
> when the first consumer switches hit the market and that was more than
> 20 years ago.
> 

I actually kept a couple of old hubs around for some kinds of testing -
they could be quite handy when trying to monitor the traffic of a
particular system.  (You put the hub between the device and the rest of
the network, then you can have a laptop with wireshark listening to all
the traffic.)  A managed switch set up with a mirror port does the job
too, but the hubs I had were going free!

I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, and
just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4738

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 11/28/20 7:22 AM, David Brown wrote:

> 
> I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
> equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, and
> just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.
> 

Nah... A switch can be had for $10 and have been in production for far
longer than hubs.  When was the last time you could even find a hub for
sale in a store? 2005?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4742

On 28/11/2020 21:37, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 11/28/20 7:22 AM, David Brown wrote:
> 
>>
>> I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
>> equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, and
>> just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.
>>
> 
> Nah... A switch can be had for $10 and have been in production for far
> longer than hubs.

The switches that existed when hubs were popular were massively
expensive.  And no switch has ever cost $10 - excluding thrown-out
second-hand devices that would not be used in a serious network.

But in corporate networks, there is a lot more involved than just the
cost of the hardware.  The cost of changing things is often more
relevant than the hardware itself - the downtime, the mounting, the
paperwork, and so on.

>  When was the last time you could even find a hub for
> sale in a store? 2005?
> 

I can't remember - but I think it was a long time before that when we
last bought one.  However, it's perhaps 5 years since I last removed an
old hub from one of our networks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4743

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 11/29/20 4:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/11/2020 21:37, Johann Beretta wrote:
>> On 11/28/20 7:22 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
>>> equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, and
>>> just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.
>>>
>>
>> Nah... A switch can be had for $10 and have been in production for far
>> longer than hubs.
> 
> The switches that existed when hubs were popular were massively
> expensive.  And no switch has ever cost $10 - excluding thrown-out
> second-hand devices that would not be used in a serious network.
> 

Be careful when making absolute claims. You said no switch, including
thrown-out second hand devices....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Procurve-2610-48-J9088A-48-Port-10-100-1000-Ethernet-Switch/274592476654?hash=item3feefcadee:g:3sUAAOSw~kFfwUyq

$10 opening bid (which means it MIGHT sell for $10.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4744

On 2020-11-29, Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------F2A5B81AEF67C13D33627186
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 11/29/20 4:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 28/11/2020 21:37, Johann Beretta wrote:
>>> On 11/28/20 7:22 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
>>>> equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, a=
> nd
>>>> just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah... A switch can be had for $10 and have been in production for far=
>
>>> longer than hubs.
>>=20
>> The switches that existed when hubs were popular were massively
>> expensive.  And no switch has ever cost $10 - excluding thrown-out
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>> second-hand devices that would not be used in a serious network.
>>=20
>
> Be careful when making absolute claims. You said no switch, including
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^
> thrown-out second hand devices....
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Procurve-2610-48-J9088A-48-Port-10-100-1000-E=
> thernet-Switch/274592476654?hash=3Ditem3feefcadee:g:3sUAAOSw~kFfwUyq
>
> $10 opening bid (which means it MIGHT sell for $10.)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web