thank you very much for this great review, could you please share the specs of the rackable mount that you used as it fits perfectly this netgear switch ? I would be very nice of you. congrats once again.
----- @pjfonline ----- - I have to be honest. I was a bit confused by that too... Normally, transfer rate notation is in 'bits' and storage notation is in 'Bytes'(Some OSs use a binary scale for storage notation, especially older ones. Which would confuse a lot of younger people today unless it's given in 'Binary Bytes'.). But it's also very common to convert transfer rates to the amount of data transferred storage wise as an estimate of the time it would take to transfer a specific amount of data. This is where it got a bit confusing since he misspoke a few times mixing those two up. He was trying to compare interface transfer rates of storage devices relative to the speed of the network transfer rate while also mentioning the amount of data he was transferring. Him comparing 'SATA 3.x' rate of '6.0 Gigabits/second' to the '10 Gigabits/second' network rate, he was correct in saying that it's a bit of a bottleneck. And as such, to utilize the full potential of the network, one needs to use storage devices that are much faster than that of 'SATA 3.x' interface. -----
tyvm for this helpful review!
thank you very much for this great review, could you please share the specs of the rackable mount that you used as it fits perfectly this netgear switch ? I would be very nice of you. congrats once again.
Gigabits or Gigabytes...?
-----
@pjfonline
-----
- I have to be honest.
I was a bit confused by that too...
Normally, transfer rate notation is in 'bits' and storage notation is in 'Bytes'(Some OSs use a binary scale for storage notation, especially older ones. Which would confuse a lot of younger people today unless it's given in 'Binary Bytes'.).
But it's also very common to convert transfer rates to the amount of data transferred storage wise as an estimate of the time it would take to transfer a specific amount of data.
This is where it got a bit confusing since he misspoke a few times mixing those two up.
He was trying to compare interface transfer rates of storage devices relative to the speed of the network transfer rate while also mentioning the amount of data he was transferring.
Him comparing 'SATA 3.x' rate of '6.0 Gigabits/second' to the '10 Gigabits/second' network rate, he was correct in saying that it's a bit of a bottleneck.
And as such, to utilize the full potential of the network, one needs to use storage devices that are much faster than that of 'SATA 3.x' interface.
-----
Hugo! :)
Hugo should have his own channel