3 ms·
The problem with 2.5G is that it's not enough of an upgrade over 1G to warrant buying all new switches and NICs to get it. For that matter few home users push
by jandrese 4y ago
The problem with 2.5G is that it's not enough of an upgrade over 1G to warrant buying all new switches and NICs to get it. For that matter few home users push around enough data for 10G to be a big win.
IMHO this is why Ethernet has stalled out at 1G. People still don't have large enough data needs to make it worthwhile. See also: the average storage capacity of new personal computers. It has been stuck around 1TB for ages. Hell, it went down for several years during the SSD transition.
- Dalewyn 4y ago2.5gbps is literally 2.5x times the speed of gigabit ethernet, so that's going to be very noticable even for most home users if they do any amount of LAN file sharing. It's really just the cost that's the problem, because paying 4x to 5x or even 6x times the cost of gigabit hardware for a 2.5x times performance boost doesn't make a lot of sense. If 2.5gbps peripheral hardware costs would come down I will happily bet they will take off.
- amoss 4y agoThis assumes that the LAN is the bottleneck. Gigabit ethernet tops out at 120MB/s, which is about the speed of spinning rust on a NAS.
- Dalewyn 4y agoYeah, but you probably have more than one drive RAID'd in that NAS so you will almost certainly get faster transfers (granted: sequential) if ethernet wasn't the bottleneck. 2.5gbps ethernet translates to roughly 250MB/s in real world transfer speeds, that's a lot. Literally over double real world gigabit transfer speeds, and far less likely to bottleneck you.