Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#191

Post by toast0 »

trumpdong wrote: post #114
drnick1 wrote: post #39

Earlier 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.

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.

> If you have a fixed computer or NAS, stop making excuses and install a 10G fiber card in it.

I mean sure, I could install a sfp+ card, but the cat5 installed in 2003 or so works fine with my 10gbase-T equipment (maybe it won't work on all my runs, but so far I'm two for two and I ran out of 10g ports on my core switch). Why would I tear up my walls to run fiber when I have cabling that works for me. (I use dac for servers near the switches)

I have seen some attractively priced 40g equipment on ebay, but honestly 1G wasn't really limiting me, I just wanted to see if 10g would work.

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#192

Post by arghwhat »

klempner wrote: post #115
arghwhat wrote: post #93

Well, 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…

Hmm, yes I was conflating a few things there.

However, I'd hold that this is an extension of the USB 3 mess that predates USB-C, even if the x2 mode specifically was a USB-C addition.

The important thing for people to know is that support for USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is practically non-existent: TB3 came before as a well-established (but premium) solution, and USB4 just two years after to commoditize it. A complicated solution with mid-tier bandwidth and none of the flexibility didn't attract attention, so support is poor.

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#193

Post by znpy »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #148
znpy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey Nirav, dumb question: would it be possible to have usb-c ethernet adapters using intel chips in order to have vPro features on framework laptops (along with vpro-enabled intel chips) ? That's probably the missing cherry on top, as having vpro once the framework motherboard gets reused as a home server it gives some manageability features.

vPro requires the NIC to be connected directly to the PCH (over PCIe/CNV). This is going over USB, which won't cut it. An Intel WLAN card in an M.2 slot on the mainboard might work (given your givens; a vPro enabled chipset).

> vPro requires the NIC to be connected directly to the PCH (over PCIe/CNV). This is going over USB, which won't cut it.

i see, i did not know about this.

however, let me use your knowledge and ask you another question: vpro-enabled thinkpads without an ethernet port do have a dongle that should allow vpro-usage.

is that some kind of vpro-specific dongle? i mean, iirc that dongle also has to be connected to a very specific port

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#194

Post by kristianp »

The photos on that page look good, with detectable in focus and out of focus areas. Looking at this equipment page, https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#equipment he's using full frame or aps-c cameras. The exif reported resolution on one of the images suggests they might be frames from the 4k video.

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#195

Post by aaronmdjones »

znpy wrote: post #193
aaronmdjones wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vPro requires the NIC to be connected directly to the PCH (over PCIe/CNV). This is going over USB, which won't cut it. An Intel WLAN card in an M.2 slot on the mainboard might work (given your givens; a vPro enabled chipset).

> vPro requires the NIC to be connected directly to the PCH (over PCIe/CNV). This is going over USB, which won't cut it. i see, i did not know about this. however, let me use your knowledge and ask you another question: vpro-enabled thinkpads without an ethernet port do have a dongle that should allow vpro-usage. is that some kind of vpro-specific dongle? i mean, iirc that dongle also has to be connected to a very sp…

I'm afraid I don't know anything about ThinkPads.

Hazarding a guess I'd say it's using Thunderbolt (hence the specific port requirement) which allows you to tunnel PCIe over it.

Though it is odd that they wouldn't just go with the WiFi on the motherboard option.

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#196

Post by klempner »

arghwhat wrote: post #192
klempner wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Hmm, yes I was conflating a few things there. However, I'd hold that this is an extension of the USB 3 mess that predates USB-C, even if the x2 mode specifically was a USB-C addition. The important thing for people to know is that support for USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is practically non-existent: TB3 came before as a well-established (but premium) solution, and USB4 just two years after to commoditize it. A complicated solutio…

I mostly agree with you -- 2x2 is a relative rarity, especially before Intel's Barlow Ridge chipsets that actually added 2x2 support.

Which leads to the funny point that, as far as I am aware, the very first 2x2 capable hub chipset was USB4v2/TBT5 that happened to also support 2x2.

Re: Framework's 10G Ethernet module exposes USB-C's complexity

#197

Post by mixmastamyk »

gobelet wrote: post #60
mxfh wrote: post #51

More amazed by the complexity in bundling offers, of decking out your Framework device with 6 flush USB-C port extension ports sets you back 60 bucks already. That's like a weird hidden tax. In a network world where 1GB Ethernet randomly can handshake at 100Mbit still, getting reliably more than 3/4 of the advertised Bandwith from the Adapter seems quite harmless. https://frame.work/marketplace/expansion-cards?search…

I like the modularity, but I'd feel better if it came with the "blanks" that just extends the inside USB-C port towards the outside. I feel like things would not look like nickel-and-diming if those blanks came with the laptop, and they just priced them in the final price. Or even better, offered the option to "upgrade" one or several of those to whatever you need.

The usbc ones are just extension cables in a small box, which is why they are half the price of the others.
Post reply on HN