nanog mailing list archives
RE: 95th Percentile = Lame
From: Joe Blanchard <jblanchard () wyse com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:40:54 -0700
Hmm, I thought 1's were high and 0's were low? lol Oh well, such is digital.. -Joe Blanchard -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:26 PM To: Joe Blanchard Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: 95th Percentile = Lame
In reading this thread. Does this mean that if I send an 0xFFFF bit
pattern
to a network versus a 0x0000 pattern I'd be charged more for the energy consumption since all the 1's are high and consume more elecetric
no, it's the transitions from 0 to 1 or vice versa that take the energy. that's why the nanog list is so repetitive, saves money. randy
Current thread:
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Joe Blanchard (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile = Lame Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Joe Blanchard (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Andrew Odlyzko (Jun 04)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Randy Bush (Jun 03)