|
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > However, when it comes to 2.5G, I struggle to find one good reason to use it; such a tiny step-up in bandwidth, and for what? Portability and heat. You can get a small USB 2.5G adapter that produces negligible heat, but a Thunderbolt 10G adapter is large and produces a substantial amount of heat. I use 10G at home, but the adapter I throw into my laptop bag is a tiny 2.5G adapter. |
| |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni an hour ago | parent [-] | | I’m sure it depends on the model, but in my experience if you force a 10G copper transceiver to 2.5G the insane heat generation goes away. I don’t have any Thunderbolt 10G adapters, but I’m kind of surprised they’re much larger. A SFP+ transceiver is the same size as a SFP one. |
|
|
| ▲ | johncolanduoni 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 40G on Mikrotik is just channel bonding of 4 10G links at layer 2. It’s not like the vast majority of 100G that does layer 1 bonding. I really don’t know why they did it other than to have a bigger number on the spec sheet - I can’t imagine they save any money having a weird MAC setup almost nobody else uses on a few low-volume models. |
|
| ▲ | u8080 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 1x PCIE 3.0 has 8 Gbps raw speed - for 2.5Gbps duplex Ethernet you'll need 6~7 Gbps of raw link to CPU. For 5Gbps and higher, you'll need another PCIE line - and SOHO motherboards are usually already pretty tight on PCIE lanes. 10GbE will require 4x3.0 lanes |
| |
| ▲ | johncolanduoni an hour ago | parent [-] | | Are motherboards commonly using PCIe 3.0 for onboard peripherals these days? I wouldn’t expect it to save them much money, but my PCIe knowledge is constrained to the application layer - I know next to nothing about the PHY or associated costs. |
|
