rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) (03/22/89)
A previous poster was mentioning a "fly-run" from a thin Ethernet T-connector to the machine. Are there any gurus who can comment on the legitimacy of attempting this? I'd gotten the impression that you were forced to attach the T directly to the workstation and that any extra length between the T and the machine would seriously degrade performance (by throwing off collision detection). -- | Ray Lubinsky rwl@trinity.cs.virginia.edu (Internet) | | rwl@virginia (BITnet) | | Department of Computer Science, ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl (UUCP) | | University of Virginia (804) 979-6188 (voice) |
dd@ariel.unm.edu (03/23/89)
In article <3036@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >A previous poster was mentioning a "fly-run" from a thin Ethernet T-connector >to the machine. Are there any gurus who can comment on the legitimacy of >attempting this? >I'd gotten the impression that you were forced to attach the T directly to the >workstation and that any extra length between the T and the machine would >seriously degrade performance (by throwing off collision detection). Perhaps by throwing off collision detection, but there is a more basic problem: If you do this, it will no longer be a 50 ohm impedance! This will, of course create/exagerate any problems you would normally encounter with reflections and standing waves. In short, I recommend against it, HIGHLY. Don Doerner (dd@ariel.unm.edu) 2701 Campus Blvd., NE Albuquerque, NM, 87131 (505)277-8036
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (03/23/89)
In article <3036@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU>, rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes: } A previous poster was mentioning a "fly-run" from a thin Ethernet T-connector } to the machine. Are there any gurus who can comment on the legitimacy of } attempting this? It isn't legit. } I'd gotten the impression that you were forced to attach the T directly to the } workstation and that any extra length between the T and the machine would } seriously degrade performance (by throwing off collision detection). You are correct.
todds@cognos.uucp (Todd Sandor) (03/24/89)
In article <3036@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
+Are there any gurus who can comment on the legitimacy of
+attempting this?
+I'd gotten the impression that you were forced to attach the T directly to the
+workstation and that any extra length between the T and the machine would
+seriously degrade performance (by throwing off collision detection).
I'm got a guru on this, but can let you know that we had a Lan Analyzer
Vendor Salesman (no vendor name here), come in to show us a demo and he
tried to hook up his analyzer like this (I showed him the room and left
for a few minutes), and before I made it back to the room people were
complaining that something on their workstations was wrong, after some
checking I found he had done this, I unhooked it and then everything came
back up, bottom line is if do this it will bring down that thin-net cable
segment, or at least it happened to us.
--
Todd Sandor Voice: (613) 738-1338 ext 2704 P.O. Box 9707
Cognos Incorporated FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Dr.
uucp: todds@cognos || uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!todds Ottawa, Ontario
Steady as she goes! CANADA K1G 3Z4