Point of clarification since it isn’t clear from the title. This isn’t a Framework product, but a product by Wisdpi designed for the Framework Expansion Card form factor.
Which they made in partnership with Framework.
Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
111–120 of 197 posts
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#112I chuckled at 10G wired ethernet on a laptop. I mean in a docking station? Sure that seems reasonable. But fun none the less. I appreciate the USB-C nature of the Framework's expansion ports, it does make real the entire reason that USB was created in the first place, hot plug slots. Still, I (and others) pointed out to Intel early on that using Ethernet with a specific packet type would be cheaper and just as fast (…
Future proofing. Websites nowadays load tens of megabytes for a simple news page. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future a website consumes 500+ megabytes on the initial page load. That will take 40 seconds on a 100 megabit link and 400 milliseconds on a 10 gigabit link. Try to load any modern website on dial-up. The connection will likely timeout before a full page load.
This is the most dystopic use for that bandwidth I could possibly imagine.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#113I chuckled at 10G wired ethernet on a laptop. I mean in a docking station? Sure that seems reasonable. But fun none the less. I appreciate the USB-C nature of the Framework's expansion ports, it does make real the entire reason that USB was created in the first place, hot plug slots. Still, I (and others) pointed out to Intel early on that using Ethernet with a specific packet type would be cheaper and just as fast (…
Ethernet comes with a completely different set of social norms, like not having a master and slave device.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked in to it and it seemed like 10gbit was much better over fiber. Ended up deciding that 2.5gbit is plenty. The 2.5 gear is significantly cheaper and runs cool.
> I looked in to it and it seemed like 10gbit was much better over fiber. Yes, except that most devices use Ethernet. So, at the end of the day, you still need Ethernet cables unless you want to deal with an additional switch or converter in every room.
If you have a fixed computer or NAS, stop making excuses and install a 10G fiber card in it.
If you have a laptop or TV it probably doesn't need 10G.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#115Well, this is about USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, which is a mess created by USB IF for good old, blue USB A connectors. Not USB-C complexity. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is the very rarely supported 20Gb/s variant of USB 3, and making devices now that require that for full performance is a weird decision, with high-speed capable ports generally having wider support for either USB4 or Thunderbolt3+. I imagine the reason would be that some ch…
> Not USB-C complexity
3.2 Gen 2x2 (and the occasionally relevant 1x2 if you have a weak cable) are USB C only.
USB C ports and cables have 4 USB 3 "superspeed" lanes rather than two. When you use an A to C cable only one pair of those connects. The point of the "x2" modes is that they use the second pair of lanes that would otherwise go unused.
Except of course they don't always go unused. DisplayPort Alternate Mode sends DisplayPort over those two "unused" lanes getting you USB 3 data alongside a half speed DisplayPort connection. (or alternatively full speed DisplayPort on all four and only USB 2), and then of course Thunderbolt 3 and modern USB4/TBT4 use all four lanes and tunnel everything.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#116Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I looked in to it and it seemed like 10gbit was much better over fiber. Yes, except that most devices use Ethernet. So, at the end of the day, you still need Ethernet cables unless you want to deal with an additional switch or converter in every room.
Fiber/10Gbase-*R is Ethernet too. Please say copper/RJ45/base-T when you mean copper/RJ45/base-T.
If you want to ackshually, both fiber and copper are empty pipes that can carry any layer 2 protocol, and are not inherently Ethernet. They only become Ethernet cables when they're connected to terminals that pass that protocol through them.
Unless we're defining some networking standard, "Ethernet cable" is a perfectly acceptable term. Everyone will understand what is meant. The added specificity you're asking for doesn't improve the quality of communication.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about overhead? Can you truly do 10Gb/s networking on a 10Gb/s USB port? Would having such NIC on a 20Gb/s USB port not result in higher speeds?
It uses 128b/132b encoding so 10Gb/s USB ≈ 9.69Gb/s you do then have USB framing overhead but it's probably around 2% on typical 1500B ethernet frames. So all in you are losing probably 5% or so to overhead. I am of the opinion that 5Gbe is a much more sensible speed for a laptop adapter right now as it uses half the power and can obviously run full wack on 10Gb/s USB so you're looking at like 5Gbe vs ~9.4Gbe.
Stop insisting on Cat.6A (and related) copper cables for speeds beyond 1000BASE-T (maybe beyond 2.5G by now), just use dumb multi mode fiber it's way easier technology-wise and if you want power you can have that as well.
At distances where Cat.6A is even an option the demands on the fiber are very low. And it uses less power than the BASE-T PHY. The cable at least without integrated power is very thin as well, unless you can't respect it enough to not kink it, in which case you'd want a thicker one just to prevent you from being able to break the fiber.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fiber/10Gbase-*R is Ethernet too. Please say copper/RJ45/base-T when you mean copper/RJ45/base-T.
If you want to ackshually, both fiber and copper are empty pipes that can carry any layer 2 protocol, and are not inherently Ethernet. They only become Ethernet cables when they're connected to terminals that pass that protocol through them. Unless we're defining some networking standard, "Ethernet cable" is a perfectly acceptable term. Everyone will understand what is meant. The added specificity you're asking for d…
That's why I added base-*R/base-T.
And particularly for 10GE the heat and power problems are due to the copper transceiver DSPs.
And people nerdy enough to run 10GE at home might well run fibre.
So, no, the specifity is needed and useful.
Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 Gb/s Ethernet interfaces do not require 20 Gb/s USB ports for reaching maximum performance, they already reach that on 10 Gb/s USB ports, despite of what the writer of TFA believes. The main application of 20 Gb/s USB ports is to connect external NVMe SSDs, when faster USB 4 or Thunderbolt ports and SSDs are not available. For an external NVMe SSD on USB, a 20 Gb/s USB port will double the throughput, unlike for a…
What about overhead? Can you truly do 10Gb/s networking on a 10Gb/s USB port? Would having such NIC on a 20Gb/s USB port not result in higher speeds?
Both 10 Gb/s Ethernet and 10 Gb/s USB have bit data rates that are 3% lower than 10 Gb/s, due to encoding (64/66 bits for Ethernet, 128/132 bits for USB).
So the their maximum speed is approximately 9.7 Gb/s.
Then for Ethernet there is a protocol-dependent overhead, e.c. depending on whether TCP or UDP is used, and depending on whether standard packets or jumbo packets are used.
The TCP overhead can reach in the worst case up to close to another 3%, reducing the achievable TCP throughput to around 9.4 Gb/s.
The USB frames add some extra overhead, but it is normally not important in comparison with other factors that can reduce the throughput.
All that a 20 Gb/s USB port can do is to reduce the overhead of the USB frames, but that is a negligible improvement. Using jumbo Ethernet frames (which are 6 times bigger than standard frames), if both ends support them, is likely more useful for increasing the throughput, than using a 20 Gb/s USB port.