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

171–180 of 197 posts

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

#171

Post by rconti »

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 (…

The problem with docking stations is they're more expensive than an ethernet adapter. I tried to use a few 2.5+Gbps dongles with my laptop(s) to avoid spending $400 on another Caldigit dock (TS4; I already have a TS3 with 1Gbps ethernet).

Unfortunately, all 3 USB-C dongles I tried had significantly worse performance than the built-in 1 gig ethernet on the dock, apparently using the RTL8156 chipset which is known to be unstable.

I've got a 4th dongle on the way to try next! If I buy enough of these things I'll have spent more than just buying the right dock in the first place.

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

#172

Post by cesarb »

jeroenhd wrote: post #63
dmitrygr wrote: post #53

The article never does resolve WHY it was slow in linux :(

The video mentions that drivers were needed to get the full speed on Windows, and that the Realtek Linux drivers didn't compile on a modern kernel. So it's probably software. Realtek makes some pretty affordable networking chips but their Linux drivers can be a real gamble. Either it works out of the box or you're in for years of messing around.

> Realtek makes some pretty affordable networking chips but their Linux drivers can be a real gamble. Either it works out of the box or you're in for years of messing around.

And that's when it's a legitimate Realtek chip. Many years ago, I bought a 100M Realtek Ethernet card, expecting it to work out of the box on Linux; but it was actually a counterfeit, using a Silan chip instead of a Realtek chip, and the out-of-tree Linux driver (for Linux 2.4) that came with it on the CD was actually a driver for the Silan chip with the numbers filed off. I ended up writing and submitting a Linux 2.6 driver for it, just to make people stop blaming the Realtek driver for not working with the unrelated Silan chip.

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

#173

Post by fluoridation »

eqvinox wrote: post #163
fluoridation wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>the post I was replying to was talking about what "devices use" and cables required for that

Yes, that person said "most devices use Ethernet", to which you correctly pointed out they meant to say RJ45. However, in the process of making that correction you made an unrelated error yourself in saying that fiber is Ethernet too.

>you can by no means assume copper when talking about an Ethernet port

You can, if by "Ethernet" you mean an RJ45 jack and its cable, which is a fairly common usage of the word. It doesn't matter that it's technically incorrect. The default idea of physical protocol that the word "Ethernet" invokes in most people is that of twisted pair copper cabling. If you take a random person and put in front of them a fiber optic cable carrying Ethernet and a copper cable carrying serial signals and tell them "would you mind unplugging the Ethernet cable?" they'll disconnect the copper cable.

>Your assertion that "everyone will understand" is also something I plainly know to be untrue in my bubble.

Oh, so you know several people who when presented with the dichotomy of Ethernet or fiber (because that's what the comment you replied to was about, as it put Ethernet in contrast with fiber), they'll be completely dumbfounded about what is meant, as if hearing gobbledygook?

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

#174

Post by mrexroad »

_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.

Fr. There was that small window back in the early ‘10s where data was slow and expensive in India and 4g wasn’t yet pervasive in China. Execs were still receptive to my pitches that we needed to spend some engineering cycles on rework to improve initial load times / weight after showing them simulations of absurdly slow first paint / first content over simulated 2g/3g from India / China data centers.

Once 5g became pervasive and data cheap, no one gaf about a cold load weight fitting on a floppy.

I’m still clutching my iphone mini, which after ios 26 just boggs down under the absurd weight of many pages and turns in to a space heater before reloading entire page b/c of error. No need for forced obsolescence when the enshittification of basic websites takes care of that for you. :-/

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

#175

Post by bdavbdav »

tristor wrote: post #153
bdavbdav wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you want to either really. I can't see many scenarios where the absolute portability of having a 10GBE adapter in the laptop is really necessary. I suspect the general use of these kind of things is for people docked at a desk, at which point its best served by a well cooled dongle or a chunky dock like a TS5

My use case is definitely while sitting at a desk in my home office where I can directly cable to my 10GbE switch. For other usage, I just stick to WiFi 7, which is usually plenty fast enough for most usage. I prefer connecting wired when doing downloads (Steam, OS upgrades, et al).

Same principle here - 2.5GBE dock on the desk, and UniFi WiFi 7 everywhere else. Though switching to the WiFi 7, which hits 1gb+ just about everywhere in the house, I generally feel less inclination to hit the desk

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

#176

Post by ChuckMcM »

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.

This is where my head is on docks. When your connected to enhanced infrastructure (like your home lab) sure, but when you're checked into the Embassy Suites? Not particularly useful :-).

That said, I'm kind of sad that Framework and others have generally opted to let "third party USB-C docks" be the docking solution. I miss the days when my Thinkpad dropped onto its docking station with a purpose build bottom connector and seamlessly became a desktop/deskside type computer that was wired into my desk setup. Sadly I think that vision of docking died with the Thinkpad's sale to Lenovo.

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

#177

Post by eqvinox »

fluoridation wrote: post #173
eqvinox wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>the post I was replying to was talking about what "devices use" and cables required for that Yes, that person said "most devices use Ethernet", to which you correctly pointed out they meant to say RJ45. However, in the process of making that correction you made an unrelated error yourself in saying that fiber is Ethernet too. >you can by no means assume copper when talking about an Ethernet port You can, if by "Ethe…

> Oh, so you know several people who when presented with the dichotomy of Ethernet or fiber (because that's what the comment you replied to was about, as it put Ethernet in contrast with fiber), they'll be completely dumbfounded about what is meant, as if hearing gobbledygook?

Yes.

And I've used up the time I'm willing to sink into this subthread, see you around.

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

#178

Post by ChuckMcM »

organsnyder wrote: post #167
AdamH12113 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a future hell I fear. :-).

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

#179

Post by BenjiWiebe »

namibj wrote: post #118
matt-p wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unles…

In fact, just to for single mode fiber. Looking on fs.com, single mode cables are slightly cheaper, and the optics (for 10G) are $30 to MMF's $25.

And you get much better future proofing with SMF. And if you do need a long fast run, SMF is what you want.

Post reply on HN