Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 2, 2013, 09:19 AM   #26
kot
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Why would anyone in a sane state of mind buy an ethernet hub in 2013? Hubs only offer half-duplex Ethernet connectivity on a shared medium which will lead to collisions and greatly reduced performance due to collisions and recovery from them (CSMA/CD) and also due to the condition that only one station can trasmit at a time. Hubs are things of the past and should be completely avoided. This product must be a total joke.

Last edited by kot; Feb 2, 2013 at 09:30 AM.
kot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:01 AM   #27
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
I have multiple devices plugged into it, but no USB 3.0 devices.
So you dont really know what the problem is then

I was talking about using a USB 3.0 hub, with USB 3.0 devices plugged in - none of them work correctly on the rMBP. The second you plug in any additional devices that are USB 2.0 the whole thing falls back to USB 2.0.

Apple's implementation of the USB 3.0 standard is flawed.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by kot View Post
Why would anyone in a sane state of mind buy an ethernet hub in 2013? Hubs only offer half-duplex Ethernet connectivity on a shared medium which will lead to collisions and greatly reduced performance due to collisions and recovery from them (CSMA/CD) and also due to the condition that only one station can trasmit at a time. Hubs are things of the past and should be completely avoided. This product must be a total joke.
Bit of a narrow minded point of view there.

If your thunderbolt ports are in use you have no other choice if you want to hook up to a wired network.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:16 AM   #28
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by kot View Post
Why would anyone in a sane state of mind buy an ethernet hub in 2013? Hubs only offer half-duplex Ethernet connectivity on a shared medium which will lead to collisions and greatly reduced performance due to collisions and recovery from them (CSMA/CD) and also due to the condition that only one station can trasmit at a time. Hubs are things of the past and should be completely avoided. This product must be a total joke.
This isn't an ethernet hub, it's a poorly worded article.

It's a USB 3.0 hub that has an ethernet adapter on it.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
So you dont really know what the problem is then

I was talking about using a USB 3.0 hub, with USB 3.0 devices plugged in - none of them work correctly on the rMBP. The second you plug in any additional devices that are USB 2.0 the whole thing falls back to USB 2.0.

Apple's implementation of the USB 3.0 standard is flawed.

----------



Bit of a narrow minded point of view there.

If your thunderbolt ports are in use you have no other choice if you want to hook up to a wired network.
Gotcha - wasn't sure if it was a problem with USB 3.0 devices, or USB 3.0 hubs in general.
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:37 AM   #29
el-John-o
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Missouri
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConCat View Post
Because with a thunderbolt port you could operate all three of those USB3 ports and at full 5Gbit speeds and the gigabit ethernet port. You can't do 3x USB3 speeds on a USB3 port.
Without a lot of cost, without Thunderbolt you aren't likely going to get that anyway. Even on many computers, not each port gets it's own controller. There are often internal hubs and the like. More than likely, any USB hub with it's own controller (like a thunderbolt dock) is going to have just one controller and thus just one 5gbps connection.

Besides, there really aren't a lot of use cases for that much bandwidth. A FAST spinning hard drive will hit maybe 120MB/s (960mbit). Even an SSD won't saturate 5gbps. The only time you'll saturate even one 5gbps connection, or even come close to thunderbolt, is moving tons and tons of files through a large RAID enclosure. I don't think people realize just how fast USB 3.0 is. I think it's part of why Thunderbolt hasn't taken off yet (though I'm not going to call it 'dead' like everyone else who apparently got their very first computer in 2009. Ever major new standard, even USB, took several years to really take off.) is that there really aren't a lot of uses for it yet. USB 3.0 is fast enough for external storage in far more applications. An array of SSD's or a huge array of fast spinning disks, perhaps. Otherwise, with just about any single disk, USB 3.0 is fast enough.

However, USB has always been notoriously over-represented. USB 2.0, for example, had a 'signaling speed' of 480mbit/s. but could only actually transfer data at 280mbit/s. It's all marketing. That's why FW400 was far faster than USB 2.0 (despite USB 2.0 being '480' vs '400'). So I'm not sure how much ACTUAL bandwidth you'll get. But I know I'm able to get full saturated speeds with my external drives.

EDIT: The ACTUAL speed of USB 3.0 is 3.2gbit/s, and it's maximum payload throughput is 4gbit/s using a certain type of encoding (just looked it up!). Even that's plenty fast enough though for a couple hard drives, given that most use cases aren't pulling down large files from multiple drives at the same time. Though, I still hate that something that can't hit about 3ish gbps and, only with special encoding in a synthetic environment can hit 4gbps, but be marketed as 5gbps. What if cars were marketed as getting 'up to 100mpg' because, in a vacuum tube at 19mph they can get that?

Makes me wonder if Apple would have been more successful with FireWire if THEY lied about the bandwidth (or used the maximum electrical theoretical throughput, which the hardware could never actually achieved). On paper, FireWire always seemed slower. But in the real world it's much faster, as it nearly hits it's advertised speeds.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
So you dont really know what the problem is then

I was talking about using a USB 3.0 hub, with USB 3.0 devices plugged in - none of them work correctly on the rMBP. The second you plug in any additional devices that are USB 2.0 the whole thing falls back to USB 2.0.

Apple's implementation of the USB 3.0 standard is flawed.
That's really really odd, for two reasons.

1, the 'standard' for USB 3.0 includes 2.0 backward compatibility. Though it might make sense if Apple is only using ONE controller that perhaps that's happening.

And 2, I'm 99% positive my non-retina doesn't do that. Just the other day I had one USB 2.0 connection to my cinema display, and another to a USB 3.0 hard drive and was transferring a big batch of files.

Edit: Yep, no issues here on a mid-2012 non retina. USB 2.0 works alongside USB 3.0 with no speed decrease. Although it's worth noting that I'm getting 650mbps to an external 2.5" drive, wheras I can reference my NAS at about 900-950mbps over ethernet. Further reason why I really think USB 3.0 is an over-hyped standard! Maybe I'll take back what I said before, I assumed that it would run about half of it's advertised speed like USB 2.0 did, which puts it as fast as eSATA. But that's not the case, at least from what I'm experiencing and others have reported on the 'internets'.
__________________
Windows7 PC - Phenom II 965@4GHz x4 Cores, 16GB DDR3-2133, Radeon HD7970 | iPhone 5 32GB | iPad WiFi+3G 64GB | Mid 2012 MacBook Pro 13", Dual 256GB SSD's in RAID 0, 16GB DDR3-1600

Last edited by el-John-o; Feb 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM.
el-John-o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 04:01 PM   #30
ConCat
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In an ethereal plane of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weckart View Post
No you couldn't, at least not concurrently. 16Gbps won't go into 10Gbps. Current TB only has twice the bandwidth of USB3 before any overheads are factored in.
Thunderbolt is dual-channel 10 gbps. That means 20gbps total. If you put two USB3 ports on one channel, and the remaining USB3 port and Ethernet port on the other, you could achieve 16Gbps on thunderbolt. Although that's only theoretical max.
ConCat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 06:22 PM   #31
Imac Sam
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Harrisonburg, Virginia
Just give me an adapter for thunderbolt to USB3. With size and shape similar in kind like apple's thunderbolt to ethernet.

Is that too much to ask for!!!!
__________________
Imac(2011) 27 with 256Gb SSD, 1Tb Hd, and 24Gb RAM
White Iphone5 64Gb, White Ipad Air 128Gb, White Ipad Mini 32Gb, Black Ipad-2 32Gb; ATV-2
www.mountcrawfordweather.org
Imac Sam is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 01:42 AM   #32
Michael Scrip
macrumors 68010
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofjseph View Post

It always cracks me up you have to use up a valuable port to add another one plus more wires and power supply.
Well... you "use up" 1 port and turn it into 3... seems like a good idea. And when you include the other port... you get a total of 4. Not bad when Apple only gives you 2 to start with.

If you need more ports... you gotta do something.

Also... you shouldn't need the external power supply if you're just using flash drives or pocket hard drives. And larger external hard drives will have their own power supply.
Michael Scrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 10:33 AM   #33
weckart
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConCat View Post
Thunderbolt is dual-channel 10 gbps. That means 20gbps total. If you put two USB3 ports on one channel, and the remaining USB3 port and Ethernet port on the other, you could achieve 16Gbps on thunderbolt. Although that's only theoretical max.
Thunderbolt gives a max of two lanes DUPLEX at the full 10Gbps if you attach thunderbolt peripherals. When one lane is sending data the other has to be receiving or idle. It cannot be sending at the same time. Max throughput is still 10Gbps unless you can coordinate the data transfer to your peripherals accordingly.
weckart is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 03:55 PM   #34
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by weckart View Post
Thunderbolt gives a max of two lanes DUPLEX at the full 10Gbps if you attach thunderbolt peripherals. When one lane is sending data the other has to be receiving or idle. It cannot be sending at the same time. Max throughput is still 10Gbps unless you can coordinate the data transfer to your peripherals accordingly.
What you're describing is exactly the *opposite* of duplex (and was commonly called 'half-duplex' back in the era of modems and serial cable connections). A duplex connection means that the connection can both send *and* receive at the same time. Thunderbolt, as you said, gives two 10Gbps full duplex channels. That's 10Gbps in and 10Gbps out simultaneously on each channel.

USB, on the other hand was only 'half-duplex' (only capable of sending *or* receiving at any given moment) up until USB 3, when they fixed that particular problem.

On the other hand, the Thunderbolt/PCI-e overhead is (according to the Intel announcements) already factored into the 10Gbps numbers (so you actually get 10Gbps of signal space for your device's protocol), where the 5Gbps numbers for USB 3.0 don't already accomodate the USB protocol overhead. (Fortunately, that mess has been improved upon with USB 3.0 as well, since USB 2.0 and earlier had nearly 50% protocol overhead, leading to much slower speeds than the numbers advertised. I seem to recall, but can't find numbers at the moment, that the USB 3.0 overhead has been reduced to something like 15-20%, which isn't great, but it's not too bad either.)
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 04:44 PM   #35
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
Nice looking hub... But pretty damn expensive!
Compared to the proposed (yet seemingly non-existent) Thunderbolt hubs, it's darn cheap. Figure in the cost of an Apple Ethernet adapter for a Macbook Pro Retina and I don't think it's really that bad if you have a need for both more USB 3.0 ports and an Ethernet port (like many Macbook Pro Retina users do). Sadly, you only gain 2 ports here and that's a real problem. I simply don't get why hub makers (and even Apple on their notebooks even) offer so few ports. One external mouse and keyboard (wired) and you're DONE on a MBP Retina. It's ridiculous. My 2008 MBP has SO many more ports in total AND an upgrade slot to boot. The Retina model wastes space on the side where more ports could be added with a better design. Personally, under those conditions I'd rather have just a Mini-Display Port instead of Thunderbolt and have 4-6 USB 3.0 ports instead (utilizing all that internal space that the TB chip takes up if needed to create space near the edges of the motherboard for more ports).

What I need (for my Mac Mini which has 4-ports already) is a reliable 7-port USB3 hub and thus far the best reports for compatibility I've been able to find are 4-port hubs which would only give me 3 extra ports in total. I've already got a 7-port USB 2.0 hub MAXED OUT here (which uses one USB 3.0 port to connect) and I only have one USB 3.0 port still open as a result for any USB drives, etc. and have two more USB 3.0 3TB backup drives to connect during backups. So one more permanent type device and I have no more ports without unplugging something.

My Mac Mini doesn't need a second Gigabit port so this product doesn't interest me regardless of the number of USB 3.0 ports (i.e. no point paying for something you're not going to use unless it's the only product available), but I can see why a MBP Retina user would be interested.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 12:57 PM   #36
ed724
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmac View Post
Only 3 USB 3.0 ports? Since the hub will use one of the USB ports on the Mac, it is only adding 2 USB ports and gigabit ethernet (which requires awkward 3rd party driver and I am probably better off using Apple's $29 Thunderbolt-to-Gigabit adapter).
Whiner !!!
ed724 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 02:21 PM   #37
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed724 View Post
Whiner !!!
Considering the hub costs whopping $69 and requires a driver for gigabit ethernet (which may not be supported in the future or newer OS X), I don't think I am whining when criticizing the hub for adding only 2 additional USB ports. Belkin's $49 4 USB 3.0 hubs adds 3 additional ports) and has optional AC just like Kanex's. No gigabit ethernet of course.

Last edited by nutmac; Feb 4, 2013 at 03:14 PM.
nutmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone using the Kanex DualRole ethernet adaptor/USB 3.0 hub? uncleMonty MacBook Air 4 May 6, 2013 11:31 PM
Macworld/iWorld 2013: Mauz Turns the iPhone into a Gesture-Controlled Mouse MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 13 Feb 2, 2013 02:52 PM
Macworld/iWorld 2013: The BowBlade is an Archery Accessory for the iPhone MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 31 Feb 2, 2013 02:49 PM
Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 to Gigabit Ethernet? icebergx MacBook Pro 9 Jan 20, 2013 02:29 PM
TB gigabit Ethernet vs USB gigabit Ethernet? Lax1085 Mac Peripherals 8 Aug 2, 2012 12:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC