🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>>No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
>>>data with it.  Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem,
>>
>>An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.
> 
> 
> It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
> network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
> traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.

No, it's a meaningless thing, was my point, because no one gives a tinker's 
dam about the 'efficiency' of doing nothing, e.g. an "idle network."


>>However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually 
>>bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.
> 
> 
> "Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
> care what it's doing with the network is idle,

"Idle" is a useless state to debate about.

> only that
> during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
> difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.

However, when there are things to do a protocol that takes up bandwidth 
even when IT is 'idle' is not a good thing and network admins fight that 
problem all the time.


>>>the
>>>focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
>>>Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
>>>moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
>>>itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
>>>the topic was already isolating one parameter.
>>
>>I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't 
>>that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for 
>>netbeui don't justify keeping it.
>>
> 
> 
> No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
> were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
> limit isn't reasonable to assume either.

Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless 
protocol and it's attendant burdens.

You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited, 
and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a 
hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value' 
of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still 
isn't worth the hundred bucks.