[K12OSN] Re: Network Card suggestions revisited

[Terrell Prude', Jr.]

Gary Frederick wrote:

> Good point.
>
> Timothy Legge wrote:
>
>>>   https://www.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/2004-January/msg00015.html
>>> The response (Thanks) was that it is worth getting a card that is 
>>> better that the bottom end. The 3Com cards were one of the suggestions.
>>>
>>> Is there any data on how much better a 3Com or Intel or ? card is 
>>> than the bottom end?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have seen some comparisons lately on Gigabit cards but never on 10/100
>> cards.  You have to put this in perspective.  Yes, 3Com and Intel cards
>> are reported to be somewhat faster and would probably make sense in your
>> server.  However since a terminal doesn't use the full 100 Mbs anyway
>> you may be paying extra for nothing.
>>
>> Bottomline (IMHO) if you have 3Com cards use them.  If you don't,
>> consider what you can afford.  Sure they are only 10-20 bucks more but
>> if you have to buy a lot, you are getting into the price of a terminal
>> very quickly.
>
>
> So if a terminal doesn't use all of a 100 Mbs card, I should not use a 
> more expensive 10/100 OR Gigabit card in them? (Guess what I thought 
> about doing ;-) )
>
> Another reason for using terminals.
>
> Gary
>

It can come close.  I've seen 72Mb used when running certain apps (e. g. 
TuxType).  But Gig-E in the clients isn't needed.  Server, yes, but not 
client.  I go w/ the 3Com cards simply because 1.) they do happen to be 
pretty decent, 2.) we've already standardized on them and thus have lots 
of 'em, and 3.) I've been able to get them for $15 if I shop well.  I 
also have a Realtek 8129-based card that works very well in a thin client.
 
--TP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you GNU!?
Free/Open Source: Get back control of your computer fast, especially 
when online :-) <http://www.k12ltsp.org/>