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

101–110 of 197 posts

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

#101

Post by sfwf »

adrian_b wrote: post #95
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…

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…

>Every mini-PC or desktop motherboard that I have bought during the last 10 years had at least one such USB port.

Are you talking about USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 though? Because I've never seen any MiniPC with this port and as for motherboards, I checked my local retailer and only ~15% of currently sold ones have Gen 2x2 (mostly high-end ones).

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

#102

Post by adrian_b »

sfwf wrote: post #101
adrian_b wrote: post #95

Earlier 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…

>Every mini-PC or desktop motherboard that I have bought during the last 10 years had at least one such USB port. Are you talking about USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 though? Because I've never seen any MiniPC with this port and as for motherboards, I checked my local retailer and only ~15% of currently sold ones have Gen 2x2 (mostly high-end ones).

Most of my mini-PCs have been Intel NUCs (or more recently an ASUS NUC). I also had some Gigabyte and Zotac mini-PCs and a few others from less well-known vendors. IIRC almost all had one such 20 Gb/s USB Type C port, unless they had one or two faster Thunderbolt ports.

With mini-PCs, I frequently use external SSDs, so I certainly used those ports at their full speed.

The only mini-PCs that I had in recent years without such a fast USB port were Arm-CPU based, as those are typically starved in fast peripheral interfaces in comparison with the Intel/AMD CPUs.

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

#103

Post by matt-p »

retired wrote: post #98
adrian_b wrote: post #95

Earlier 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?

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.

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

#104

Post by subarctic »

gobelet wrote: post #56
naturalmovement wrote: post #52

Only Framework could reincarnate godawful PCMCIA cards as proprietary USB-C dongles and be praised for it. Insanity. Maybe next they can bring back the XJACK. No one wants to address the elephant in the room: it's a crap design for proprietary modules. Sure the design is open, can you use them anywhere else? Nope. You're paying a premium for USB-C dongles that can't be used on any other brand of laptop. Apple is prob…

Of course you can use the modules on any other brand of laptop. It's not going to look pretty doing it, but I've routinely used the USB-C to USB-A, as well as the mini SSD, on a MacBook Pro. Colleagues borrow them all the time when they need a SD card or MicroSD card reader. Is it as pretty as a dedicated reader for those cards? No, but it does the job. Saying they're proprietary is misleading a bit. The form factor…

Someone's making a usb hub that you can plug expansion cards into, but it's just a kickstarter last time i checked and not a very good price

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

#105

Post by stephen_g »

adrian_b wrote: post #95
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…

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…

> 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.

While this may be theoretically (almost) possible, I’m quite sure this is absolutely not the case in practice.

For example see these benchmarks of one of the more recent USB to Ethernet chipsets [1], that can reach ~9.5 Gb/s on USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 but only between ~6.2 to ~7.3 on 3.2 Gen 2x1 laptops.

1. https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/new-10-gbe-usb-adapte...

Edit: Haha, didn’t realise TFA was by the same author as these benchmarks but he’s done a lot of testing and benchmarking of these kind of devices over a long time, and it agrees with all the other benchmarking from other people I’ve seen too!

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

#106

Post by rjzzleep »

parineum wrote: post #82
rjzzleep wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it throttles CPU it means by definition means that a fan helps. Also constant heat increases failure rate.

Cycles of heating and cooling are what increases failure rates. The thermal expansion and contraction causes issues.

Permanent heat doesn't?

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

#107

Post by krisroadruck »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #78
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.

> every room I disagree with that for two reasons. First, my central switch is probably capable of both copper and fiber. Second, how many wired devices do you have spread around your house? Let's say I have an above average number of devices: a router, a NAS, two access points, and three desktops. Router, NAS, and one access point can all be adjacent to the switch and avoid any conversion hassle. The desktops are us…

I guess I have rather overestimated what a normal amount of wired devices is based on my own sample size. That or the opposite is happening with you.

My house has a POE doorbell, several POE cameras, 2 TVs that each get a connection to their attached android TV boxes, Wife's office gets a pair of connections, ditto with mine, then you've got the APs for the wireless bits + a few servers in the rack with the networking equipment.

Mind you I know I am on the high side, but I use that as the reference point. I'd figure a normal house would have 4-5 wired connections to my 20ish.

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

#108

Post by magicalhippo »

rjzzleep wrote: post #106
parineum wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycles of heating and cooling are what increases failure rates. The thermal expansion and contraction causes issues.

Permanent heat doesn't?

From what I've gathered, heat absolutely does[1] affect[2] it[3]:

Subsequently, in 1967, Black of Motorola experimentally derived a median time to failure (MTTF, i.e., operational lifetime) model for EM in Al interconnects, showing that the time to failure due to EM is inversely proportional to both the current density and the absolute temperature of the interconnect.

[1]: https://infinitalab.com/blog/ic-failure-analysis-defect-type...

[2]: https://resources.system-analysis.cadence.com/blog/msa2020-b...

[3]: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/15/3151#sec3-electronics-1...

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

#109

Post by matt-p »

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.

I agree, but maybe not all slots need to be filled with blanks, maybe leaving one or two truly empty slots is OK.

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

#110

Post by antonvs »

eqvinox wrote: post #49
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.

Fiber/10Gbase-*R is Ethernet too. Please say copper/RJ45/base-T when you mean copper/RJ45/base-T.

Excuse me, I believe you mean GNU/copper/RJ45/base-T
Post reply on HN