Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> 100Mb may seem like a joke nowadays, but the main purpose of such a toy NAS for me is to keep a copy of a directory with ~200K small files. Having 1Gb would only marginally improve the syncing speed even if the SBC supported USB 3.0.

He's wrong here. The most important thing with small files is latency, and a 1000M network will have significantly less latency than a 100M network.

Anyone running TimeMachine over network knows what I mean - local attached storage is blazing fast (particularly SSDs), wired network storage is noticeably worse performing, and wifi is dog f...ing slow.



So I am a network dummy, but why would 100M vs 1000M have a difference in latency unless the pipe was saturated?


Even in an otherwise unsaturated link, the ping packet will take 1/10th of the time to be transmitted, as the transmission clock is 10x faster.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: