Expected network throughput on Mediator?

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

In my own tests I found that 2.2 MBytes/s should be possible if you don't actually use the data transmitted. In reality with a web browser or an ftp client using the data transmitted you might get more than half of the 2.2 MBytes/s, and that's still a lot more than the Zorro II Ethernet cards can deliver. The X-Surf 100 is the fastest Amiga Ethernet card there is.

X-Surf 100 has a jumper to switch between ZII and ZIII mode.  Pretty sure I've seen numbers somewhere of folks getting as much as 6.6MB in ZIII.  Might be mis-remembering, however.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

In my own tests I found that 2.2 MBytes/s should be possible if you don't actually use the data transmitted. In reality with a web browser or an ftp client using the data transmitted you might get more than half of the 2.2 MBytes/s, and that's still a lot more than the Zorro II Ethernet cards can deliver. The X-Surf 100 is the fastest Amiga Ethernet card there is.

Probably a dumb question, but how is it that a RapidRoad connected to an X-Surf 100 in ZIII can get up to 6-7MB/sec (source:  http://www.fitzstevesamigaworld.co.uk/?p=253 ), but Ethernet only 2.2MB?  Is it all just protocol overhead?  Seems like 2.2MB/sec isn't a bus limitation if RapidRoad can do so much faster through basically the same pipeline.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Now if you hooked up an Ethernet device to your USB setup, you might see that the overall throughput won't be in the same league as the basic USB data throughput. It would probably be a lot worse than what the X-Surf 100 can do all by itself.

Thanks!  Okay, that makes sense.  I actually was assuming the opposite... that Ethernet could be handled more in hardware, so you've given me something new to ponder.

I noticed Amazon has quite a few USB-to-Ethernet adapters available for sale.  I googled terms like "speed of ethernet USB on Amiga", and came across this link, which seems to indicate in the charts at the bottom that a Deneb with USB Ethernet adapter is topping out at about 1MB/sec, with close to 100% CPU utilization.  So 2.2MB/sec beats that, any day!  

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

You can reach 94-97 Mbps on a FastEthernet interface.

Sorry dude. I'm gonna let Bill & Ted take it from here.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

over my gigabit network

He's saying he gets 97Mbps throughput on his Fast Ethernet (which is 100Mbps, not gigabit) network. That would mean he's getting 97% efficiency with zero protocol overhead, etc. I'm calling BS on that. But regardless, TL;DR, off-topic for the thread, carry on folks.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

He said "You can reach 94-97 Mbps on a FastEthernet interface". FastEthernet is a technical term for a specific type of connection that I'll be damned if you will ever get 97 Mbps real-world throughput on.  Not on it's best day, with all your prayer beads in a row.  But yeah, whatevs, really.   "Xerox" used to be a specific thing, too.  Now it just means "make a copy".  Google used to be a brand name.  Now it's just a verb to say "I did a search on the Internets".  Blah blah.  Have a nice day!  

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Well, I'm sorry to see you strugling with your network, as well as your grammar.

Unnecessary and stupid personal attack. Thanks for keeping this thread classy! Sorry I get my head bit off for trying to correct someone, I know how much this site likes actual facts! :roflmao:

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

What this started with was Oldsmobile claiming that 94-97Mbit on a fastether interface is BS. It is not, and you don't need a "lab setup" to prove that, just hook a fairly modern machine with a fastether NIC to a modern switch and do your measuring. There is no difference in a "lab" and real world here, the equipment is the same.

I was really just going to ignore you, but please remind us again how all your trolling about "theoretical maximum throughput" helps this guy with his Mediator question at all?