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

161–170 of 197 posts

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

#161

Post by drnick1 »

einsteinx2 wrote: post #128
drnick1 wrote: post #40

Does a laptop really need more than 1Gbps or whatever you can get through WiFi? It's an edge device not a router.

No one needs anything, but can and do I use more than 1Gbps from my laptop? Of course. 1Gbps is only ~125MB/sec transfer speed. When I’m copying large files to and from my home NAS, I often want more speed than that so a while ago I picked up a 2.5g adapter, later 5g, and now finally with these new chips a 10g adapter. Same for my SFF PC which only came with 2.5g onboard and no extra slots because ITX and can now do…

> No one needs anything, but can and do I use more than 1Gbps from my laptop? Of course.

I agree, but laptops are severely power and storage limited. How many >100GB games or whatever can you really download and actually play on a typical laptop? If faster Ethernet increases power consumption, it's probably a negative overall.

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

#162

Post by burnte »

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.

The first half is true, the second half is not. Remember overhead. You don't need 20GB/sec, but you need to take into account the USB overhead.

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

#163

Post by eqvinox »

fluoridation wrote: post #123
eqvinox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>That's why I added base-*R/base-T. You're still talking about a cable. The cable may be compatible with those standards, but you can put anything through it. It's just a physical connection. >And people nerdy enough to run 10GE at home might well run fibre. So, no, the specifity is needed and useful. No, because if you say "which do you want? Ethernet or fiber?" no one will look at you like if you asked if they want…

> You're still talking about a cable. The cable may be compatible with those standards, but you can put anything through it. It's just a physical connection.

If you want to ackshually, the post I was replying to was talking about what "devices use" and cables required for that, so it's in fact about what standards these devices support.

Apart from that, again, in the context of 10GE you can by no means assume copper when talking about an Ethernet port; SFP+ slots are quite common. Your assertion that "everyone will understand" is also something I plainly know to be untrue in my bubble. It may be true in the context of slower speeds, but for ≥10GE the general performance characteristics of twisted-pair copper transceivers are so bad as to make it into the crossover point from copper cabling into DAC cables and fibre.

And, honestly, the assumption that "Ethernet = copper cabling" is harmful for 10GE. Those transceivers are hot garbage in the literal sense, they run hot enough to warrant usage limitations on switches due to cooling/overheating limits, and they tend to be quite picky about cable quality on establishing links.

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

#164

Post by AdamH12113 »

_kb wrote: post #112
retired wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Step 1 of displaying a web page is to download a small LLM from the server to create a rendering framework at run-time...

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

#165

Post by organsnyder »

rcoder wrote: post #136
Dylan16807 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I chuckled at 10G wired ethernet on a laptop. I mean in a docking station? Sure that seems reasonable. But fun none the less. What difference does a docking station make? Sometimes you want to spend a minute or two setting up your laptop in a more serious way, and that's just as reasonable with or without a docking station.

The "dock" comment made sense to me because I don't think that true "road warrior" laptop use and 10G Ethernet deployments would coincide all that often. I've put a disproportionate number of hours and $$$ into my homelab over the years, and I still only have 2.5G Ethernet switches deployed. Most offices' (much less home/coworking space/etc.) network traffic is passing through single-gigabit switches.

I have a 5gbps symmetrical fiber connection at home, so I've spent a fair amount of time and money upgrading my homelab backbone to 10gbps. That includes a 10GBe connection to my desk, but I've had issues getting the connection to be reliable (terminating the shielded Cat6A I have in the walls is a pain). That drop hasn't been working for the past few months, so I've been on wifi instead; it hasn't been enough of an issue for me to invest the time in fixing it.

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

#166

Post by organsnyder »

stronglikedan wrote: post #160
ChuckMcM wrote: post #57

I 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 (…

My laptop is basically a desktop in a clamshell so I don't need a docking station (and it's like 5 lbs with crazy cooling so I can use it as, you know, a lap top). I work with large binaries (media) on a daily basis. I have a 1G ethernet port built in, but I'd love a 10G port. I'd absolutely make use of it (maybe not all 10Gs of it, but most of them). Besides, things are only going to get faster...

I have a Thunderbolt 10Gbe adapter. It's a larger form factor than a Framework expansion card and it has a metal case, so it dissipates heat well. Copper 10Gbe chipsets generate a lot of heat.

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

#167

Post by organsnyder »

AdamH12113 wrote: post #164
_kb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most dystopic use for that bandwidth I could possibly imagine.

Step 1 of displaying a web page is to download a small LLM from the server to create a rendering framework at run-time...

Next iteration of vibe-coding: you only ship the prompt.

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

#168

Post by jfb »

bartvk wrote: post #96
jfb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, 10Gb ethernet runs hot . I just rewired the house with 10Gb (we have 8Gb FTTP) and it's kind of upsetting how hot my Thunderbolt dock gets.

Which dock (brand/model) did you get?

The CalDigit TS5+. It's really nice!

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

#169

Post by drnick1 »

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.

It's hard to justify when Ethernet is catching up. Most new motherboards have a 2.5G port. High-end motherboards have 10G Ethernet ports. SFP cards take space, are ugly, and need directed airflow to stay cool. They are not worth it for a 4x increase in bandwidth at best.

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

#170

Post by Dylan16807 »

krisroadruck wrote: post #107
Dylan16807 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 networkin…

In that situation I'd basically consider the doorbell and cameras as a separate install.

That mainly leaves the TVs, which I would just throw on the wireless but for wiring I'd still say you run it to your central switching spot that handles both copper and fiber.

Post reply on HN