Talk:Collision domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Low-importance).
 


"A ghttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_italic.pngroup of Ethernet or Fast Ethernet devices in a CSMA/CD LAN that are connected by repeaters and compete for access on the network." -> This seems like an incomplete statement, but I'm not sure how to fix it as I'm not proficient in this topic.

It is an incomplete sentence, and it makes no sense. The whole article reads like it was written by a simpleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.68.7 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

==Efficiency and number of collision domains==<color=red Mamun Sorder call No> 01913428008 colorInsert non-formatted text here I removed this broad statement:

"The more collisions in a network the less efficient it is."

... because it's not really true. If you have a very large number of nodes transmitting on a single collision domain, an extremely high collision rate would lower efficiency. There's a balance between too many and too few domains. It's been a few years since networking class, so I can't remember enough to explain well. But for now I'm at least taking it out. ~ Booya Bazooka 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Four switches[edit]

Removed another bit of text:

"With Ethernet if you have more than four switches in one network then you are likely to extend the broadcast domain."

... Because I have no idea what it means. I believe this to be the result of poor writing, and I doubt that many other readers will understand it either. Maybe it's trying to refer to the 5-4-3 rule? ~ Booya Bazooka 05:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotary dial telephones and vinyl recordings[edit]

I don't know what others think about this line, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not totally up to speed on style guidelines etc, but I'm not a fan. Also, with the rise of wireless networking collision domains become an issue again, giving us 802.11's MACA/MACAW protocols. I'd edit but I can't think of a good wording off the top of my head and I don't have time at the moment. If no-one objects I'll edit in a week or so. Paulw1128 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

collision domain[edit]

wherein one particular device sends a packet on a network segment, forcing every other device on that same segment to pay attention to it.++I think that part is a definition of a broadcast domain++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.29.170 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?[edit]

A group of Ethernet or Fast Ethernet devices in a CSMA LAN that are connected by repeaters and compete for access on the network.

I'm not clear what the sentence is trying to tell me. Is the and superflous? 165.230.132.114 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

collion domain[edit]

collision domain where all system physically connected to each other.it allows all nodes on a network to share information on single bandwith of line.

and if there is occer any colid that is also know as single collision domain like hub... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.50.123 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is of the comment. Perhaps you lost some letters due to collisions? W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethernet or Ethernot[edit]

The {{Ethernet}} nav template was removed. I do see your point, I suppose. Although the term was coined for the original Ethernet that used CSMA/CD. But modern Ethernets do not anymore, so maybe it applies more to wireless networks that are still broadcast nowdays. The concept might be fuzzier for wireless nets using multiple channels etc., and not sure if wireless nets use repeaters very often (some historical ones did). Anyway needs more sources cited for sure. How about if I add the category but not the navbox? W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have taken care of that. --Kvng (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)