Products > Test Equipment

Show us your square wave

<< < (56/109) > >>

joeqsmith:

--- Quote --- If you want to divide packets across the aggregate then LACP needs to be in place throughout the chain...both source and destination, and ANY device (switch etc) in-between needs to have those links operating as a "team".  If you team those ports, you don't exactly have a 2Gb/s port either, as there is overhead in the LACP. 
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---I can leave both ports attached to the switch, each with their own IP and select the card I want to use from Labview.   
--- End quote ---

I saw no difference in performance leaving them connected to the switch.   No attempt was made to team the ports.   The one on the DSO is again a 100Mb.  So yea, 2Gb/s with them combined is not going to happen.  Forget the overhead.


--- Quote ---also running into a switch is not a point to point connection.....the switch re-prioritizes packets, depending on lots of things.....you can, however tag packets with priority...using QOS. 
--- End quote ---

I never stated that running through a switch was point to point.  Read it again eagle eyes.   :-DD


--- Quote ---I ran some tests with larger MTU size, Nagle enabled, changing the DSOs software priority and direct connection to the PC rather than using the Cisco switch.   Gains were minimal.
--- End quote ---

Just tried a few quick tests, left it with the defaults and called it a day.   No big deal or effort. 

TunerSandwich:

--- Quote from: joeqsmith on January 30, 2015, 04:29:55 am ---
I never stated that running through a switch was point to point.  Read it again eagle eyes.   :-DD


--- End quote ---

Eagle eyes?  no need to be rude you know, this isn't a pissing contest.....I was trying to help you understand your flawed methodology.  If you want to play it like that though....best of luck, just don't be surprised with the responses you are getting.....if you are getting MB and Mb confused, and then telling people they are wrong, you aren't going to have much luck....

sheesh was just trying to help you.....I guess no good deed goes unpunished.   :-//

Either way, still love ya buddy and best of luck <3

joeqsmith:

--- Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 30, 2015, 04:11:50 am ---I know that is all a bit off topic here, but just adding a bit of insight on how that all comes together in the real world.  I had a brief stint as a Cisco tech (CCNA cert) and thought some of that jargon might shed some light on some faults in methodology. 

--- End quote ---

Off topic??  Really?      :bullshit:   This thread is a free for all.   :-DD :-DD

Really, if someone were to go out and buy a brand new DSO to look at their square waves, I think this is all good info to consider!  Press on....

joeqsmith:

--- Quote from: TunerSandwich on January 30, 2015, 04:35:18 am ---
--- Quote from: joeqsmith on January 30, 2015, 04:29:55 am ---
I never stated that running through a switch was point to point.  Read it again eagle eyes.   :-DD


--- End quote ---

Eagle eyes?  no need to be rude you know, this isn't a pissing contest.....I was trying to help you understand your flawed methodology.  If you want to play it like that though....best of luck, just don't be surprised with the responses you are getting.....if you are getting MB and Mb confused, and then telling people they are wrong, you aren't going to have much luck....

sheesh was just trying to help you.....I guess no good deed goes unpunished.   :-//

Either way, still love ya buddy and best of luck <3

--- End quote ---

Pissing contest??   :-DD :-DD :-DD   I was not trying to be rude.  Just pointing out that you too make mistakes when you are reading.  We all do.  Rolls off me no problem.  I screw up all the time.   

Wuerstchenhund:
TunerSandwich beat me to it so I don't think it's necessary to reiterate where your misunderstanding is. Just let me address this:


--- Quote from: joeqsmith on January 30, 2015, 03:26:15 am ---Agilent taking on a LeCroy...
 
Article that explains dead times and compares a few scopes...
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-7885EN.pdf

--- End quote ---

Agilent marketing material as source? Seriously? From a company that has a widely known history of twisting reality up to borderline lying?

I haven't looked at the video but the pdf file is typical Agilent. Based on the listed waveform rates it seems the unspecified WaveSurfer is a WaveSurfer 400 (the first compact LeCroy Windows lower mid-range scope, which ran XP but overall was a very basic scope), which has been out of production for roughly a decade. The WaveRunner waveform data very much looks like a WaveRunner2 LT, which is a VxWorks based scope introduced in 2001 which was stopped being sold roughly 11 years ago. And the WaveJet looks like a WaveJet 300 (non-A) which is a similarly old model. This Agilent paper is dated 2014, but it seems for them to get their point across LeCroy had to compare their current scopes with 10+ year old competitor models. Not that this is surprising, considering their history of being sparse with the full truth.

They also seem to ignore is that most LeCroy scopes reach their max waveform rates in segmented mode. Your WM8k, if I remember right (I don't have the data at hand for that model), is spec'd with around 100k wfms/s. My WP7300A is spec'd with up to 150k wfms (which it does achieve), and TunerSandwich's and my WR64Xi is spec'd with 1.25M wfms/s (which it does achieve as well). Scopes starting with the WRXi also have a mode called "WaveStream" which lets the scope run at much higher update rates than in normal mode. So even though these scopes are pretty old by today's standards they still can achieve high waveform rates, if operated correctly. Of course none of that is mentioned by Agilent.

I guess this is why Agilent obviously had to resort to older models for their "comparison" to "take on LeCroy", because LeCroy's current scopes had look their scopes like toys (at least in the mid-range and high-end, LeCroy's entry level line is still crap). So I guess the bottom line is that their 2014 scopes do pretty well against 10+ year old scopes from their competitors.

Well done Agilent  :palm:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod