So, whats your Ethernet port set for? 10 or 100?

[Mallow]

no clue

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Mallow
no clue

me too. but i don't care. flaunt your E-DICK!

 

[Riprorin]

How do you check?

 

[neutralizer]

faster is better.

 

[Zee]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How do you check?

under "advanced" in your network card config properties, look in media type

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Lazee

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How do you check?

under "advanced" in your network card config properties, look in media type

Thanks, found it. I'm in "automode".

 

[Linux23]

why the f would you set your ethernet WAN link to more than 10mbps HD?

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: Transition
auto

 

[rh71]

Have you guys ever monitored actual transfer speed for the 100Mbit connections ? I used DUMeter to monitor and actual was only about 750KBps for a 450MB file. This is going through the Linksys BEFSR41 (common 4-port router/switch).

 

[aircooled]

For straight internet speeds it wont make a difference but for transferring files over the household LAN (video files to/from the HTPC etc) the 100 is definitely faster.

 

[Mucho]

Auto Detect

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rh71
Have you guys ever monitored actual transfer speed for the 100Mbit connections ? I used DUMeter to monitor and actual was only about 750KBps for a 450MB file. This is going through the Linksys BEFSR41 (common 4-port router/switch).

i use a monitoring program called netpersec. quite convenient, shows a tiny red/blue upload/download graph in the systray. double clicking it shows details. probably get around 7~MegaBytes sec over network when transfering files. and well.. dsl is well.. slow of course. maybe 1.2mbit if i'm lucky.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Linux23
why the f would you set your ethernet WAN link to more than 10mbps HD?

I was curious in regards to a different thread i had started. I picked up a Cisco 2800 Switch 10 meg, 24 port. A few people were saying how 10 meg was almost worthless. i say crap all on that. 10 meg is perfectly fine, especially when you consider your internet access is 10 meg. Plus latency from switching hits which adds up FAST. 10 meg on a local network is fine. Granted, 100 meg is a helluva lot nicer, but 10 is no slouch.

 

[Bassyhead]

100

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Linux23
why the f would you set your ethernet WAN link to more than 10mbps HD?

I was curious in regards to a different thread i had started. I picked up a Cisco 2800 Switch 10 meg, 24 port. A few people were saying how 10 meg was almost worthless. i say crap all on that. 10 meg is perfectly fine, especially when you consider your internet access is 10 meg. Plus latency from switching hits which adds up FAST. 10 meg on a local network is fine. Granted, 100 meg is a helluva lot nicer, but 10 is no slouch.

I use a gateway/router/switch for my home network so everything is set to 100 Mbps, it comes in handy for large file transfers. (over the lan that is, my outbound connection isn't anywhere near 10Mbps).

 

[Chaotic42]

100.0 Mbps

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Linux23
why the f would you set your ethernet WAN link to more than 10mbps HD?

I was curious in regards to a different thread i had started. I picked up a Cisco 2800 Switch 10 meg, 24 port. A few people were saying how 10 meg was almost worthless. i say crap all on that. 10 meg is perfectly fine, especially when you consider your internet access is 10 meg. Plus latency from switching hits which adds up FAST. 10 meg on a local network is fine. Granted, 100 meg is a helluva lot nicer, but 10 is no slouch.

umm? 10 meg for LAN transfers is like freaking dial-up compared to 100 Base-T (8-10 MB/sec).

But like I said - lots of folks force threir NIC to 100/full in essence cripling their LAN.