I was just curious about how a USB port is capable of replacing a NIC. Isn't a NIC responsible for providing a MAC address, framing data, and listening? How does the usb interface establish all of this? Does it just send it to the processor and use a program?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
USB instead of NIC: how does it work?
- Thread starter Rumrunner
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
USB to USB networking requires a special cable and is treat more like a direct cable connection, its not a network in the sense of an ethernet network for example. You can't just connect to any network using just a USB port, you need a network adapter. A USB network adapter works exactly the same as a PCI network adapter, but plugs into a USB port.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Location
- Claremore Oklahoma
I would pass up the usb crap and get real ethernet. usb is much slower and the componets are more expensive.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Wrong. USB 2.0 is almost five times faster the 100Mbit ethernet, which is by far more common than the newer gigabit stuff. And school keyboards suck (Ican'ttype onit) USB2.0=480Mbit, USB 1.1=11-12Mbit, but I doubt any USB network would be using 1.1 or 1.0. What would rock would be 480MBit wireless... but it doesn't exist yet.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
petteyg359 said:
Wrong
Theoretically yes it could be....but its not
and also USB uses the CPU to do all the work of decoding packets from the usb controller.
Ethernet is all hardware decoded..
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Location
- Wisconsin, USA
Well, in the industry, I can see the hardware MAC of the NIC or the USB. It comes out the same. The MAC ID used to get you access, in cable modems, IS the cable modem MAC ID (HFC MAC ID, CM MAC ID, etc.).
What I have seen, why I hate USB connections, is that the USB....
1. requires software, which is a pain in the *** because most customers LOSE their USB CDs and then ***** about having to go get another one. For free.
2. is tempermental. I've seen USB drivers junk out for really no reason at all, and then they need to be uninstalled/reinstall (a pain, also links to point 1)
Speed is a non-issue with them, as most connections are still well below 10M down or up. So it's like having a Ferarri vs. a Pinto. Doesn't matter which one you have, the speed limit in the city never goes above 30. (but if you have a choice, get the Ferrari).
Hehe. And please don't b*tch when you throw away the CD and then need it later. We support guys hate that.
What I have seen, why I hate USB connections, is that the USB....
1. requires software, which is a pain in the *** because most customers LOSE their USB CDs and then ***** about having to go get another one. For free.
2. is tempermental. I've seen USB drivers junk out for really no reason at all, and then they need to be uninstalled/reinstall (a pain, also links to point 1)
Speed is a non-issue with them, as most connections are still well below 10M down or up. So it's like having a Ferarri vs. a Pinto. Doesn't matter which one you have, the speed limit in the city never goes above 30. (but if you have a choice, get the Ferrari).
Hehe. And please don't b*tch when you throw away the CD and then need it later. We support guys hate that.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Actually, I have a USB 2.0 to IDE adapter (it's just a cable, not an enclosure) and it transfers data to an ATA100 drive at around 40MB/s. That's only 320Mbit, but AFAICT that's a limitation of the drive, not the USB. I've NEVER seen a drive that can actually have a sustained speed of even 50MB/s.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
last time i checked we were talking about ethnet over usb, not disk drives...
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Still, the speed is there...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
petteyg359 said:
no, its not.
even if you call it "fast" the cpu is still doing way more work than an ethernet card, or an ide controller since it has to decode the packets anyways.
usb sucks
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
As far as USB vs. PCI NICs go, they're just different busses... it's like comparing IDE to SCSI harddrives... the harddrives are practically the same, but the busses are different. A USB NIC is just like a PCI NIC, but it uses a different bus.
As far as which one is better, PCI is better. USB was never created for the purpose of continuous network communication. It was made as a universal way of connecting things like printers, scanners, or even keyboards and mice to any computer. Prolonged high-rate communication was not in the original design.
A lot of people find USB "touchy" or run into problems with it disconnecting. Although USB2.0 has a lot of bandwidth, it is split between all of the devices. The way the bus works, IIRC, if you have a keyboard and a mouse and a NIC on the same USB controller, then the most you can use is 90% of the bandwidth, minus a certain percentage reserved for the keyboard and the mouse... higher-bandwidth devices would reserve even more bandwidth
As far as which one is better, PCI is better. USB was never created for the purpose of continuous network communication. It was made as a universal way of connecting things like printers, scanners, or even keyboards and mice to any computer. Prolonged high-rate communication was not in the original design.
A lot of people find USB "touchy" or run into problems with it disconnecting. Although USB2.0 has a lot of bandwidth, it is split between all of the devices. The way the bus works, IIRC, if you have a keyboard and a mouse and a NIC on the same USB controller, then the most you can use is 90% of the bandwidth, minus a certain percentage reserved for the keyboard and the mouse... higher-bandwidth devices would reserve even more bandwidth
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Location
- Vancouver, WA
I wouln't exactly call it blazing (nor would I dare call it light on the CPUXenocide said:
), but for a NIC it should very well be "sufficient". Look up benchmarks, and you'll find USB2 interfaces usually topping out around 25MB/sec (200Mbit/sec) sustained. Unless you've got a really terrible controller that only can do 12.5BMB/sec (or loads of devices on the same channel / too few USB channels), the USB interface has bandwidth to spare for a 100Mbit network.Of course, like su root pointed out, USB isn't designed for ethernet (though it works) and has several disadvantages if you go that route. I haven't had the displeasure of having driver or connection problems *knock on wood*, but even I've seen the horrible latencies (approaching/exceeding that of WiFi) that a USB NIC has. I'm just trying to point out that USB Ethernet isn't quite as bad as you seem to paint it
JigPu
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Xenocide, not to be rude, but it seems like you just hate USB and are just spouting opinions... I use a lot of USB stuff, and for me it rocks. I've never used USB network, so I don't know about that, but for printers and scanners it's far faster than the parallel or SCSI connections. And 40MB/s for a USB-IDE external connector is pretty fast... But for a network, it probably would be pretty pointless unless you just want to connect two computers in the same room together (though aren't USB network cards more expensive than a standard ethernet NIC and cable?).
Similar threads
