> I am benefiting from it for sure. I guess what I was asking > originally was if the higher frequency rated cables will give it more > headroom since the 100BaseTX ethernet does push CAT5 to the limit. 100BaseTX is specified to run on Cat5 cabling, and with proper Cat5 cabling you get a a BER of 10^-8 or better. As long as your cabling meets the Cat5 spec, you'll get 100 Mbps - there's no possibility of "more headroom" with cables rated to higher frequency. Note that 100BaseTX is different from 10BaseT (but similar to synchronous serial lines) in that there is always a signal present. Note also that FreeBSD can easily saturate 100 Mbps Ethernet. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Matthew Dillon
- Cable quality (was: poor ethernet performance?) Greg Lehey
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Matthew Dillon
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Tim Baird
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Tim Baird
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Karl Pielorz
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Sv: poor ethernet performance? Leif Neland
- Re: Sv: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Karl Pielorz
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy