Drop Multi Topology
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
 Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...
found 55 articles for 0.503 sec
Hi all, I am looking for some general description on problems with data acquisition in the following categories: Multi-drop, multi-user network topologies & architectures Power Consumption (Heat dissipation) Numbers of interconnections (interconnection wires) Physical communications selection (Modem selections) Comms on Copper Comms on power line Copper Optical     

Group: alt.comp.blindusers · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in alt.comp.blindusers
Author: tjadeja
Date: Mar 18, 2008 06:28

For an issue of this complexity, I would recommend opening a case with PSS. We are going to need a lot more time and data in order to iron this out. Feel free to have your case owner ping "nedpyle" so I can keep an eye on things and offer any suggestions based on the data. -- Ned Pyle Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support All postings on this newsgroup are provided "AS IS" with no
Show full article (0.40Kb)
Additionally, we have some morphs in the "Files in Replica set" that are not in any physical directory on the DFS. E.g., "\Profiles\Dc33\PrintHood_NTFRS_<hex>". There is not even a "Dc33" directory in any of the root targets. "John" wrote: > We're having (what appears to be) an issue with DFS/FRS stealing all the > network bandwidth. Here's our setup: > > Site A: > DC1 >     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs
Author: Ned Pyle [MSFT]
Date: Jul 28, 2006 08:19

Here's another interesting tidbit we discovered in Ultrasound. It's reporting our DfsRoot replica set as 11.3GB with 88907 files. But each DC's physical directory size in only 6.2 GB with around 68,203 files. John "John" wrote: We're having (what appears to be) an issue with DFS/FRS stealing all the network bandwidth. Here's our setup: Site A: DC1 DC4
Show full article (3.49Kb) · Show article thread
Albert Manfredi wrote: > On Aug 11, 12:47 pm, tns1 <t...@cox.net> wrote: > >> OK, so every ethernet node using utp has the low impedance termination >> in place across the pairs and every link is buffered from the next one >> by passing thru a switch/hub/repeater. There is no direct tap. The RS485 >> multi-drop network is direct tap. It only has termination at the extreme >> ends of the shared     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs
Author: John
Date: Jul 27, 2006 19:38

On Aug 11, 12:47 pm, tns1 <t...@cox.net> wrote: OK, so every ethernet node using utp has the low impedance termination in place across the pairs and every link is buffered from the next one by passing thru a switch/hub/repeater. There is no direct tap. The RS485 multi-drop network is direct tap. It only has termination at the extreme ends of the shared twisted pair, otherwise every
Show full article (2.74Kb)
1) Is ethernet even suitable here? Trying to evaluate the use of ethernet TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) as a comms upgrade for an existing industrial safety monitor system. The topology is a daisy-chain of maybe twenty monitor stations all connected to a master PC. This is currently done with RS485 using a simple multi-drop half-duplex scheme where all stations are slaves to the master. Each station     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs
Author: John
Date: Jul 27, 2006 19:26

Hi Princess On Jul 31, 9:33 pm, neurop...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Sir Kenneth wrote: You can call me Tucker. Oh? Very well. But... plain "Tucker" seems rather naked without a respectful title. "Sir Tucker"? Hmmm, no. And "Marquis de Tucker" doesn't quite roll off the tongue. I'll have to give it more thought. My lab pals called me Katy, (from KT)
Show full article (2.73Kb)
Hi Princess On Jul 31, 9:33 pm, neurop...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > >> Sir Kenneth wrote: > > You can call me Tucker. > > Oh? Very well. But... plain "Tucker" seems rather naked > without a respectful title. "Sir Tucker"? Hmmm, no. And > "Marquis de Tucker" doesn't quite roll off the tongue. > I'll have to give it more thought. My lab pals called me Katy, (from KT)     

Group: comp.protocols.tcpip · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in comp.protocols.tcpip
Author: tns1
Date: Aug 11, 2008 14:28

Ken S. Tucker wrote: Sir Kenneth wrote: You can call me Tucker. Oh? Very well. But... plain "Tucker" seems rather naked without a respectful title. "Sir Tucker"? Hmmm, no. And "Marquis de Tucker" doesn't quite roll off the tongue. I'll have to give it more thought. My problem with "infinite...spaces" is that we eventually must return to 4D + an event sequence to provide a
Show full article (4.01Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: comp.protocols.tcpip · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in comp.protocols.tcpip
Author: Albert Manfredi
Date: Aug 11, 2008 11:13

Show full article (2.75Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: comp.protocols.tcpip · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in comp.protocols.tcpip
Author: tns1
Date: Aug 7, 2008 11:08

Show full article (2.65Kb)
    

Group: sci.physics.foundations · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in sci.physics.foundations
Author: Ken S. Tucker
Date: Aug 1, 2008 11:25

Show full article (5.88Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: sci.physics.relativity · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in sci.physics.relativity
Author: Ken S. Tucker
Date: Aug 1, 2008 08:03

Show full article (5.88Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: sci.physics.foundations · Group Profile · Search for Drop Multi Topology in sci.physics.foundations
Author: neuropulp
Date: Jul 31, 2008 21:33

Show full article (4.12Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next