From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LdHgW-0003xR-Ee for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 357CFE02D0; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10960E02D0 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9B564338 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.421 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7toI8oxKt0fr for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190F5647C3 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LdHgJ-0004a7-3f for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:11 +0000 Received: from 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com ([67.220.10.117]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:11 +0000 Received: from grante by 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:11 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller? Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <49bf44f10902261934l1d33ff17nd64fbfaff4d5b1a3@mail.gmail.com> <49A763C4.5010201@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902262142u68d0a789g336e23849987494d@mail.gmail.com> <49A78BA0.8030602@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902270737s7cd41da0t734fdc00d5c67a73@mail.gmail.com> <49A80CEE.5000200@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902270900q2ec748f6p489fc1839bf32f7d@mail.gmail.com> <49A82351.8090009@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902271221k30134a9fg907bc477dfc3683@mail.gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Linux) Sender: news Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 3c9a1327-fbb9-460c-a792-67f1d58db7cc X-Archives-Hash: e921bc05a75432ce22dd4d53dcc4750e On 2009-02-27, Grant wrote: >>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me. >> >> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too. >> >> Dale > > But that's OK isn't it? I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam > and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a > 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it. The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's talking to 1.1 devices. In that case, the 2.0 controller is transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller. > I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the > line here. Could someone straighten me out? A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH. It doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters what speed it's actually talking. -- Grant