Quake3World

A dog running at a velocity of 10km/h, carrying 10 4.7gig DVD's or 100mbps Ethernet, transferring the same amount of data, over 1 km?

Download some porn while waiting on the dog. :icon14:

Edit: Because the Dog will be there in 6 minutes with 43.8GB (a 4.7GB DVD is really only 4.38GB)

at 100mbps you would only have 4.39GB in 6 minutes... (Assuming the perfect network of course)

Ah, but what about the time it takes to copy the data from the dvd's onto the computer?

hmmmm indeed.


But... Something that huge I would wind up making a back-up copy of anyway. This way it's already done. :icon14:


Not to mention the funny points for seeing a dog with a pack of DVDs strapped to him. :lol: :icon14:

What about if it was already on the DVD, and you ONLY calculated the time it took to get the data 1km ahead.

er see my first post?

Well, if you consider it being 47 gigs total, then the ethernet would do it in 385s and the dog in 360s.

w00f

ToxicBug wrote:Well, if you consider it being 47 gigs total, then the ethernet would do it in 385s and the dog in 360s.

Your messing up your bits and bytes...

Networks are in megabits. Not MegaBytes

DVDs are in GigaBytes, not gigabits


100Mbps = 12.5MBps
47GB = 385,024Mb

really? didn't know that. No wonder my cable seems so fast to me for it's labled connection.

Ethernet is less likely to have packet loss.

FlamingTP wrote:really? didn't know that. No wonder my cable seems so fast to me for it's labled connection.

Here you go

http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/

mjrpes wrote:Ethernet is less likely to have packet loss.

*drum beat*

:lol:

mjrpes wrote:Ethernet is less likely to have packet loss.

especially if there's a truck involved :icon19:

can i have my 2376542 posts added to this account, i'm an orphan with one testicle

SoM,

as much as I agree with you, could you please keep it in one thread.

FlamingTP wrote:SoM,

as much as I agree with you, could you please keep it in one thread.

no, fuck off