| Title: | DEChub/HUBwatch/PROBEwatch CONFERENCE |
| Notice: | Firmware -2, Doc -3, Power -4, HW kits -5, firm load -6&7 |
| Moderator: | NETCAD::COLELLA DT |
| Created: | Wed Nov 13 1991 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 4455 |
| Total number of notes: | 16761 |
Can anyone tell me what the specs are for the detmr and the detmi?
I have serious performance problems in a lan while using the detmr, but
everything responds quickly with the detmi installed instead. Are there
timing issues that the detmi handles better than the detmr?
Ed
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2750.1 | Yes | KEIKI::WHITE | MIN(2�,FWIW) | Thu Sep 14 1995 00:16 | 13 |
Unofficial answer, is YES we were promised the DETMI would handle
packets from devices not conforming to the frequency specs of IEEE
802.3 specifications.
However there was a frightening entry somewhere where it appeared
that the retimed pulses out of the DETMI might also be out of
tolerance, i.e. DETMR's had problems with the retimed pulses? I hope
it was just an invalid report, or am I incorrect in assuming that a
repeater in retiming the pulses, will change the frequency of the
incoming pulses to its own clocking?
Bill
| |||||
| 2750.2 | UPSAR::ETHERNET, note 457 among others.. | FOUNDR::OUIMETTE | Eyes of the World | Thu Sep 14 1995 14:16 | 7 |
And for a bunch more info re: the DR90T/DR90C problem, look in
UPSAR::ETHERNET, many different notes, but note 457 is a pretty good
summary of the problem...
-chuck
Router Interop
| |||||