Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!hercules!mathom.cisco.com!billw From: BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM (William Westfield) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: LAN speed????? Keywords: Ethernet, cable, transmission line. Message-ID: <12581355675019@MATHOM.CISCO.COM> Date: 13 Apr 90 01:30:51 GMT References: <19603@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <7301@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Sender: usenet@csl.sri.com Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, CA Lines: 29 >[Personally I think LANS should be able to go lot faster than then >the 10 megabit/sec. standard Ethernet---Anybody actually know? I'm >basing this guess on the fact that I'm able to receive 40 channles of >real time videa over RG-59(just like RG-58 only different impedence) via >local cable. If each station requires about 6MHz of bandwidth alone, >than ethernet should be no where near the limits of the RG-58 cable. yes, ethernet speed is more limited by other factors (like everyone on the cable haveing to hear the same packets and detect collisions reliably) than by inherent limitations in the cable. Similar cable used in broadband networks has a total bandwidth much larger than 10 Mb, but the technology is also much more complex (requiring repeaters, head ends, and other forms of access control). Things like "ultranet" run multiple 100Mbits over coax, though not for the distances ethernet can travel over. >The thru-put of ethernet is much lower than 10 megabits per second >because of protocol and SW overhead. An excellent system can run at 1 >megabit persecond. Most workstations run at 100 to 300 kbits per second. This is very obsolete information. ANY workstation ought to be able to get over 1 Mb these days, or be laughed at. Good workstations get more like 3 Mbps, and highly tuned implementations get better than 8 Mbps. (yes, using real TCP, with checksumming, and even though there WERE ethernet collisions during the data transfer.) Even moderate speed PC/AT clones do better than 100 kbits most of the time. Bill Westfield cisco Systems.