Gigabit network slower than expected.... - Connectivity

This is a discussion on Gigabit network slower than expected.... - Connectivity ; I bought a Linksys WRT310N wireless N Gigabit router, 2 Linksys Gigabit 5 port switches, 1 Linksys 8 port Gigabit switch, 2 PCMIA to Ethernet Gigabit ethernet cards by Belkin and 3 internal el cheapo 1 Gigabit full duplex athernet ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Gigabit network slower than expected....

  1. Gigabit network slower than expected....

    I bought a Linksys WRT310N wireless N Gigabit router, 2 Linksys Gigabit 5
    port switches, 1 Linksys 8 port Gigabit switch, 2 PCMIA to Ethernet Gigabit
    ethernet cards by Belkin and 3 internal el cheapo 1 Gigabit full duplex
    athernet cards and replaced all of my 10/100 stuff on my small network.

    After getting everything set up, I expected throughput (copying a file)
    speeds to be around 60MB/s...but (using Racoonworks free speed tester from )
    I am getting readings of 7.5MB/s.

    What could be causing such a slow response in copying a file on my new
    Gigabit network?

    I made sure that nothing was running on either system and no major network
    traffic was happeing that I am aware of.

    Thanks for your help!

    jim



  2. Re: Gigabit network slower than expected....

    On 2008-04-09 01:46:47 -0400, "jim" said:

    > I bought a Linksys WRT310N wireless N Gigabit router, 2 Linksys Gigabit 5
    > port switches, 1 Linksys 8 port Gigabit switch, 2 PCMIA to Ethernet Gigabit
    > ethernet cards by Belkin and 3 internal el cheapo 1 Gigabit full duplex
    > athernet cards and replaced all of my 10/100 stuff on my small network.


    Are the copies "local" (same network), not from a wireless to a wired
    host, and between alike operating systems? Wireless signal degradation
    could be it, lousy network card / driver performance, and finally
    TCP/IP misbehaving between your machines, even a bad cable.

    If these are Windows machines that are under your administrative
    control, etc. and aren't Vista or W2K3, you may be able to tweak a
    parameter in the registry that enables something called RFC1323 TCP
    Window Scaling. I'll spare the long technical explanation, suffice to
    say it will allow your machines to talk to other hosts more efficiently
    by reducing the number of TCP ACKs required to send large quantities of
    data.

    Of course, backup your registry, etc., registry tweaking is not for the
    faint-of-heart, if the registry is fouled, your system may not boot,
    etc. There are some commercially sold utilities that can tweak this for
    you.

    /dmfh

    --

    __| |_ __ / _| |_ 01100100 01101101
    / _` | ' \| _| ' \ 01100110 01101000
    \__,_|_|_|_|_| |_||_| dmfh(-2)dmfh.cx


  3. Re: Gigabit network slower than expected....

    jim wrote:
    > I bought a Linksys WRT310N wireless N Gigabit router, 2 Linksys Gigabit 5
    > port switches, 1 Linksys 8 port Gigabit switch, 2 PCMIA to Ethernet Gigabit
    > ethernet cards by Belkin and 3 internal el cheapo 1 Gigabit full duplex
    > athernet cards and replaced all of my 10/100 stuff on my small network.
    >
    > After getting everything set up, I expected throughput (copying a file)
    > speeds to be around 60MB/s...but (using Racoonworks free speed tester from )
    > I am getting readings of 7.5MB/s.
    >
    > What could be causing such a slow response in copying a file on my new
    > Gigabit network?
    >
    > I made sure that nothing was running on either system and no major network
    > traffic was happeing that I am aware of.
    >
    > Thanks for your help!
    >
    > jim
    >
    >


    Make sure you are properly negotiating 1000/full duplex on the NICs. You
    can force it (if it's a decent NIC) from the properties in device
    manager. If the switches are managed, do the same at that end. Make sure
    you are using cat6 cable for anything over about 100' (30 m), CAT5e for
    anything shorter, all 8 wires are properly connected and paired,
    end-to-end. Wall jacks wired correctly with approved cat6 jacks, patch
    panel, etc.

    The fastest I've ever seen Windows SMB transfer files is around 50MB/s,
    doesn't mean it won't go faster, but that is my observation. Vista is
    rumored to be even slower (and the "fix" improved it, but did not make
    it as fast as pre-Vista OS's). Haven't tried Vista myself. Try an ftp
    transfer to see if SMB is slowing you down.

    When we went to gig on our LAN, speed improved by a factor of about 3.
    My experience is that bandwidth (on a small 100Mb network) is rarely, if
    ever, the problem. I'll just about guarantee you that any 100Mb switch
    costing over $125 will provide 95+Mbps of throughput. Until you've
    reached that saturation, upping the network hardware bandwidth will have
    little effect.

    Kurt

  4. Re: Gigabit network slower than expected....


    "Digital Mercenary For Honor" wrote in
    message news:dn9uc5-ka2.ln1@news.dmfh.cx...
    > On 2008-04-09 01:46:47 -0400, "jim" said:
    >
    >> I bought a Linksys WRT310N wireless N Gigabit router, 2 Linksys Gigabit 5
    >> port switches, 1 Linksys 8 port Gigabit switch, 2 PCMIA to Ethernet
    >> Gigabit
    >> ethernet cards by Belkin and 3 internal el cheapo 1 Gigabit full duplex
    >> athernet cards and replaced all of my 10/100 stuff on my small network.

    >
    > Are the copies "local" (same network), not from a wireless to a wired
    > host, and between alike operating systems? Wireless signal degradation
    > could be it, lousy network card / driver performance, and finally TCP/IP
    > misbehaving between your machines, even a bad cable.


    Both XP Pro PCs are wired to the same network (just a few of XP machines in
    the same workgroup). There is no real server on this network.

    > If these are Windows machines that are under your administrative control,
    > etc. and aren't Vista or W2K3, you may be able to tweak a parameter in the
    > registry that enables something called RFC1323 TCP Window Scaling. I'll
    > spare the long technical explanation, suffice to say it will allow your
    > machines to talk to other hosts more efficiently by reducing the number of
    > TCP ACKs required to send large quantities of data.


    I'll test this tonite and let you know what happened.

    Thanks!

    jim



+ Reply to Thread