Theoretically you could hang a 2 port router/switch off of a gigabit hub, providing one internal connection to the LAN hub and one external WAN port. This would mean that even LAN->WAN and LAN->WAN traffic would be repeated on all ports of the LAN hub.
I've never heard of such a thing being sold though, and am honestly interested if they do (or did) exist.
Theoretically you could hang a 2 port router/switch off of a gigabit hub, providing one internal connection to the LAN hub and one external WAN port. This would mean that even LAN->WAN and LAN->WAN traffic would be repeated on all ports of the LAN hub.
I've never heard of such a thing being sold though, and am honestly interested if they do (or did) exist.
No, nobody even makes hubs anymore. The only real use for one would be for port monitoring, but all managed switches allow monitoring by duplicating all traffic to another port. And I worked in networking during 98-2002 range when gigabit over copper was first being discussed and then shipped, and I'd bet my life no one ever produced a gigabit hub. It would have been the most ridiculous device ever, as all devices connected to it would have to have been gigabit also (at a time when gigabit was $$$), and shared (half-duplex) so collisions would have overwhelmed everything.
But back to topic, effective HD speed is by far the number one issue for the OP. If talking about a NAS (or any RAID setup), as someone mentioned, even with fast drives the drive controller, NAS OS (SMB stack, etc), and/or RAID processing could be the limiting factor. But it's not collisions on a gigabit network.
Also, keep in mind that no matter how fast a NAS with RAID-5, 10,000RPM drives, etc...your single HD in the computer will be the limiting factor. The only real need for a superfast RAIDed NAS would be if it's being read from / written to by multiple machines on a regular basis.
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
Ok, now you're just being ridiculous, and I don't feel bad saying so.
Try reading this...it's a whitepaper from Cisco titled "How a LAN switch works" and is _quite_ explicit.
And, since a hub can't operate at full-duplex, how is it every single home router and switch I've ever seen is detected as full-duplex? Is that marketing? Don't you know how insanely litigious this country is? Don't you think if all these supposed switches, being marketed as switches, explicitly claiming all the features and specifications of switches were actually hubs there would be a lawsuit?
Maybe go check out the detailed specs on a bunch of home routers...when they explicitly state the switching method as "Store and Forward", is that a flat out lie? If so, you should really buy one and sue the hell out of them. Good luck with that. And when you win that suit, you'll really be my "hiro".
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
Can you link to a single example of a gigabit router that is based upon a hub rather than a switch? It is my contention that such a thing doesn't exist.
To the original poster, this means that they can rule out their router as the limiting factor for LAN throughput.
Comments
I've never heard of such a thing being sold though, and am honestly interested if they do (or did) exist.
Theoretically you could hang a 2 port router/switch off of a gigabit hub, providing one internal connection to the LAN hub and one external WAN port. This would mean that even LAN->WAN and LAN->WAN traffic would be repeated on all ports of the LAN hub.
I've never heard of such a thing being sold though, and am honestly interested if they do (or did) exist.
No, nobody even makes hubs anymore. The only real use for one would be for port monitoring, but all managed switches allow monitoring by duplicating all traffic to another port. And I worked in networking during 98-2002 range when gigabit over copper was first being discussed and then shipped, and I'd bet my life no one ever produced a gigabit hub. It would have been the most ridiculous device ever, as all devices connected to it would have to have been gigabit also (at a time when gigabit was $$$), and shared (half-duplex) so collisions would have overwhelmed everything.
But back to topic, effective HD speed is by far the number one issue for the OP. If talking about a NAS (or any RAID setup), as someone mentioned, even with fast drives the drive controller, NAS OS (SMB stack, etc), and/or RAID processing could be the limiting factor. But it's not collisions on a gigabit network.
Also, keep in mind that no matter how fast a NAS with RAID-5, 10,000RPM drives, etc...your single HD in the computer will be the limiting factor. The only real need for a superfast RAIDed NAS would be if it's being read from / written to by multiple machines on a regular basis.
Hope this helps.
No, nobody even makes hubs anymore.
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
Ok, now you're just being ridiculous, and I don't feel bad saying so.
Try reading this...it's a whitepaper from Cisco titled "How a LAN switch works" and is _quite_ explicit.
http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=357103
And, since a hub can't operate at full-duplex, how is it every single home router and switch I've ever seen is detected as full-duplex? Is that marketing? Don't you know how insanely litigious this country is? Don't you think if all these supposed switches, being marketed as switches, explicitly claiming all the features and specifications of switches were actually hubs there would be a lawsuit?
Maybe go check out the detailed specs on a bunch of home routers...when they explicitly state the switching method as "Store and Forward", is that a flat out lie? If so, you should really buy one and sue the hell out of them. Good luck with that. And when you win that suit, you'll really be my "hiro".
No, the marketers have munged up the terminology so bad everything is labelled a switch in product descriptions. Easily half the descriptions interchangeably use switch and hub, some even in he same sentence. You have to get to the level of he backplane description to determine whether you are actually getting a true switch or a cheap hub. Anything else is just ostrich simulation.
Can you link to a single example of a gigabit router that is based upon a hub rather than a switch? It is my contention that such a thing doesn't exist.
To the original poster, this means that they can rule out their router as the limiting factor for LAN throughput.
Hiro, I just registerd an account on this old thread for no reason other than to tell you that you're an idiot.