# Buffalo Intros Tiny USB-Powered 3 Port Ethernet Switch



## btarunr (Jul 9, 2009)

Buffalo Japan rolled out a tiny, pocketable Ethernet switch in the LSW-TX-3EP/C. With three 10/100 Mbps ports to spare, the switch draws power from a USB port, or any other 5V DC source. The USB power input adds portability, letting you build a small LAN anywhere at higher and more reliable speeds than ad-hoc wireless networks. You can grab one for JPY 2280 (US $24.50) when it starts selling later this month.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Disparia (Jul 9, 2009)

Cool. I would certainly prefer this to ad-hoc wireless.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 9, 2009)

cool beans


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 9, 2009)

shame its only 10/100mbps you want at least 10 through to 1000mbps...


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 9, 2009)

No matter the speed 100 is fine enough for anything. This is much better than carrying around a big router and the AC adapter for it. Specialy for those last minute mini lans.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 9, 2009)

this looks like just what i need to network my crunching rigs when i get them running again. It would great to get the big POS that i am using now out


----------



## TAViX (Jul 9, 2009)

*yes, but...*

So you can connect in total 3 PC's. And with 2 of those, 5. Well is nice. To bad no 1GB/s ports for those who wants to tranfer big data.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 9, 2009)

TAViX said:


> As far as i can tell, it only has 2 output ports. So how come this is better than a direct PC-PC connection by LAN cable?? Just asking here...



shit nevermind i thought it had a 3rd port. this would just be a waste of money then. i have a add-on card for another Ethernet


----------



## TAViX (Jul 9, 2009)

p_o_s_pc said:


> shit nevermind i thought it had a 3rd port. this would just be a waste of money then. i have a add-on card for another Ethernet



I was mistaken. It has 2 output ports, so that means you can connect 3 PCs...I hope I'm not wrong...


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 9, 2009)

TAViX said:


> I was mistaken. It has 2 output ports, so that means you can connect 3 PCs...I hope I'm not wrong...



i think your so maybe it would be useful to cut back on the cables


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 9, 2009)

TAViX said:


> So you can connect in total 3 PC's. And with 2 of those, 5. Well is nice. To bad no 1GB/s ports for those who wants to tranfer big data.



Considering no hard drive is capable of transferring at the speeds of a 1000 router then there is no point unless your putting a heavy load besides many many files at once between multiple hard drives that could fill that pipe. So for something very small and very portable a 100 link would work just fine. Unless of course you have a few 256GB SSDs raided just for storage.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 9, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Considering no hard drive is capable of transferring at the speeds of a 1000 router then there is no point unless your putting a heavy load besides many many files at once between multiple hard drives that could fill that pipe. So for something very small and very portable a 100 link would work just fine. Unless of course you have a few 256GB SSDs raided just for storage.



my samsung drives can do 110MB/s. theres your gigabit being maxed out, then and there.

I think you're mistaking Mb and MB again.

10Mb = 1.25MB
100Mb = 12.5MB
1000Mb = 125MB


----------



## BOSE (Jul 9, 2009)

This is perfect for simple and quick LAN/WAN sharing... or even testing.

Im sure 1Gb will be out in no time.


And yes, only 2 PC's at a time can share a connection.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jul 9, 2009)

The file transfering speed is dependant on the speed of the slowest drive being used to transfer. Most platter drives have a sustained rate of about 80-90MB/s

And your math must be wrong becasue i transfer way faster than that on a 10/100 network.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 9, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> The file transfering speed is dependant on the speed of the slowest drive being used to transfer. Most platter drives have a sustained rate of about 80-90MB/s
> 
> And your math must be wrong becasue i transfer way faster than that on a 10/100 network.



its not math. its fact. check your numbers again.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> The file transfering speed is dependant on the speed of the slowest drive being used to transfer. Most platter drives have a sustained rate of about 80-90MB/s
> 
> And your math must be wrong becasue i transfer way faster than that on a 10/100 network.



Then your network is not 100M*b*. The max throughput for 100M*b* is 12.5M*B*/s. Remember, it's rated in bits, with a small b. There are 8 bits in a Byte (the upper-case B). Divide 100M*b* by 8, and you get 12.5M*B*/s.

Mussels' numbers are spot on for theoretical maxes, except, the overheads involved in networking, don't even allow you to achieve maximum throughput on the network, so the real world numbers are actually lower.

I have a true Gb network, and I only usually get around 90MB/s throughtput, on the fastest sections of 2 RAID 0 arrays.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 10, 2009)

you tend to get closer to 1/10th instead of 1/8th, so 100Mb gets you 10MB/s, and so on.

On my gigabit network, i can read at 90-110MB/s, but its usually held back by whatever i'm writing to. (just because you have a raid 0 array to read off that can do 125MB/s, doesnt mean squat if you're writing to a drive that can only write at 60MB/s)


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you tend to get closer to 1/10th instead of 1/8th, so 100Mb gets you 10MB/s, and so on.
> 
> On my gigabit network, i can read at 90-110MB/s, but its usually held back by whatever i'm writing to. (just because you have a raid 0 array to read off that can do 125MB/s, doesnt mean squat if you're writing to a drive that can only write at 60MB/s)



Both of my arrays read/write around the same speeds. 90MB/s is about the best I can manage, even on the fastest parts of my arrays.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 10, 2009)

i'm running short cat 6 cables, which may be a boost to mine. i still get 90-110MB/s read off a single samsung,


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i'm running short cat 6 cables, which may be a boost to mine. i still get 90-110MB/s read off a single samsung,



I'm running CAT6 as well, but one of my machines is on a 50ft run, and I run my router (DIR-655) and a 5 port unmanaged switch. Probably contributes to the slightly lower throughput.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 10, 2009)

um, ok so this is just laning correct? only 2 pc's can connect correct? then why not just use a cross over ethernet from 1 pc ethernet port to the other pc's port instead of paying for this lil ethernet switch?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 10, 2009)

a_ump said:


> um, ok so this is just laning correct? only 2 pc's can connect correct? then why not just use a cross over ethernet from 1 pc ethernet port to the other pc's port instead of paying for this lil ethernet switch?



its 3 ports, two OTHER PC's can connect.

You can use this with one going to a router, and two for the PC's - allows you to share intarwebs and such.

admittedly you can do this with a regular switch, but this is more convenient using USB power, for a laptop user.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 10, 2009)

oh haha, i thought it was just usb cord in one end for power with the 2 ethernet ports for small LAN...(looks back over thread and "pics") course i just kinda read the part of only 2 computers and assumed only LAN lol.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 10, 2009)

a_ump said:


> oh haha, i thought it was just usb cord in one end for power with the 2 ethernet ports for small LAN...(looks back over thread and "pics") course i just kinda read the part of only 2 computers and assumed only LAN lol.



yeah its three ports, not two. i think people got confused since the third is on the back near the USB cord.


----------



## eastlake (Jul 14, 2009)

p_o_s_pc said:


> shit nevermind i thought it had a 3rd port. this would just be a waste of money then. i have a add-on card for another Ethernet



USB powered 5-port Ethernet switch is also available, check them on the following website:

http://www.dual-comm.com/

http://www.usbdiscount.com/nbt-555.html

http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/USB-Powered-10-100-5-Port-Switch/LBS005A


----------



## eastlake (Jul 14, 2009)

There is even a 5-port Gigabit Ethernet switch that is powered from a USB port.

http://www.dual-comm.com/Gigabit-5-Port-LAN-Switch.htm


----------



## Disparia (Jul 14, 2009)

Well, there goes my assumption that the USB port couldn't supply enough power for more ports and/or gigabit speeds.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 15, 2009)

eastlake said:


> There is even a 5-port Gigabit Ethernet switch that is powered from a USB port.
> 
> http://www.dual-comm.com/Gigabit-5-Port-LAN-Switch.htm



Found it for sale on amazon. $50 not too bad. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002C8D34I/?tag=tec06d-20


----------



## AsRock (Jul 15, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Then your network is not 100M*b*. The max throughput for 100M*b* is 12.5M*B*/s. Remember, it's rated in bits, with a small b. There are 8 bits in a Byte (the upper-case B). Divide 100M*b* by 8, and you get 12.5M*B*/s.
> 
> Mussels' numbers are spot on for theoretical maxes, except, the overheads involved in networking, don't even allow you to achieve maximum throughput on the network, so the real world numbers are actually lower.
> 
> I have a true Gb network, and I only usually get around 90MB/s throughtput, on the fastest sections of 2 RAID 0 arrays.



Gotta love the *BOLD* letters. It's very miss understood by so many people..


----------

