Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+Multi\-Multi\s+Network\s+Congestion\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+Multi\-Multi\s+Network\s+Congestion\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [WriteLog] Multi-Multi Network Congestion? (score: 1): Author: martyt@pobox.com (Marty Tippin); Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:55:15 -0600; Looking for opinions as to the ability of a 10MBps Ethernet network to support 5 or more networked stations running WriteLog in a big and competitive multi-multi effort. Wayne or anyone who knows --; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-12/msg00124.html (6,959 bytes)
2. [WriteLog] Multi-Multi Network Congestion? (score: 1): Author: w2cs@bellsouth.net (Gary Ferdinand W2CS); Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:10:29 -0500; Based on tests I've done here with donated M/M logs, I'd say a 10BaseT network is overqualified to handle the load! I've personally helped out at at 4-position M/M operation using TRLog's 115Kbps ser; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-12/msg00125.html (8,304 bytes)
3. [WriteLog] Multi-Multi Network Congestion? (score: 1): Author: mail@mm0ant.co.uk (MM0ANT); Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:22:12 +0000; Agreed. We used a 5 machine 10BaseT network at GM5A during CQWW SSB. Cluster and contacts going all the time. The network hardly got warm! There's far more bandwidth available than will be used so I; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-12/msg00126.html (7,533 bytes)
4. [WriteLog] Multi-Multi Network Congestion? (score: 1): Author: ua2fz@gazinter.net (Igor UA2FZ); Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:27:44 +0200; We're (at RW2F) used 10MBps network feeding 7 PCs for 3 seasons already in MM environment. Even two stations were in remote shack - 300 meters away from the main shack. We used leased line for this b; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-12/msg00130.html (7,885 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]