Coelacanthus

  • 0 Posts
  • 97 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 26th, 2023
  • CoelacanthustoHome Networking@selfhosted.forum•Need some figuring out cable internetEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    Yes. The original Ethernet use Coaxial Cable with bus topology when it was standardized at 1982. This way was used by its competitors like Token Ring as well. 10BASE5 use thicker coaxial cable so it called thick Ethernet and 10BASE2 called thin Ethernet. (5 and 2 means it can reach 500 meters and 200 meters)

    And then the engineer of AT&T want to reduce cost so they found the phone line. At that time, the phone line use twisted pair line and usually have many unused pairs in the line to a office room. So they think those pair can be reused so there is almost no cost for line. Since the phone line already use star topology so they choose it as well. 1BASE5 was standardized at 1986 (so the twisted pair ethernet have lower bandwidth than coaxial ethernet at beginning) and also called StarLAN (was renamed to StarLAN 1 when StarLAN 10 was invented at 1988). And then at 1990, 10BASE-T which is based on StarLAN 10 was invented. The last is the story we all know today.

  • CoelacanthustoLinux Gaming@lemmy.world•Ntsync x Fsync on Wayland - 5 games comparisonEnglish
    3·
    3 months ago

    He may want to say “fastsync” (whose kernel part called winesync). It’s the predecessor of NTsync and was renamed to NTsync when merged into linux mainline.

    Before NTsync was merged, those distrobutions provides the kernel packages with winesync patches. Since linux 6.12, NTsync was merged so they droped winesync from kernel package. But NTsync’s API is different with fastsync/winesync, so old wine with fastsync support will stop working with new kernel. (While NTsync still isn’t merged to wine)

  • CoelacanthustoPC Master Race@lemmy.world•Usb hub for wireless peripherals recommendationsEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    In fact, most manufacturers save money and don’t shield the cable, forcing half-speed USB 1.1, which is enough for all mice and keyboards - less than 50 kb/s of the available 6 Mb/s is required even for 240Hz polling. High-end mice might have USB 3.0 (9 pins instead of 4 in the plug) but there should be no practical difference between 3.0 and 2.0 speeds.

    When speed is enough, latency became an issue. Although with 8kHz poll rate (USB 2.0 half-speed and full-speed can only get 1kHz poll rate), the latency will be 125µs at least. But for USB 3.0, it gained two ways to improve latency: 1) it can send Bus Interval Adjustment Message to adjust latency to 13.333µs (around 75kHz); 2) it can switch to async mode. Host no longer poll the device, instead, the device notify host via ERDY.

    Of course, I don’t know how many devices utilized these features.