Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Steel, notfred
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Yes, and it also requires autonegotiation to be enabled. You can however set it so that 1Gbps and full-duplex is the only option offered on the autonegotiation to force it to gigabit, I wouldn't recommend that though - let it fail down to lower speeds if the line isn't good enough quality and use that as an indication to fix the line.BTW, isn't gigabit always full-duplex?
notfred wrote:To check network throughput, use Iperf @ http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/#download
Usacomp2k3 wrote:The task manager network utilization is accurate.
dkrum wrote:Transfers as measured by TeraCopy:
PC1/RAID0 -> PC2 (copy job on PC1): ~11MB/s
PC2 -> PC1/RAID0 (copy job on PC1): ~11MB/s
PC1/RAID0 -> PC2 (copy job on PC2): ~11MB/s
PC2 -> PC1/RAID0 (copy job on PC2): ~9MB/s
PC2: HD501LJ -> HD753LJ: ~62MB/s
PC2: HD753LJ -> HD501LJ: ~52MB/s
PC1: RAID0 SATA1 -> ATA100: ~14MB/s
PC1: ATA100 -> RAID0 SATA1: ~20MB/s
dkrum wrote:notfred wrote:To check network throughput, use Iperf @ http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/#download
Do I need to run that on both PCs, one as a server? What cmd-line switches do you use?
computron9000 wrote:What type of cable are you using?
Flying Fox wrote:What are those NICs? If it is onboard let us know the motherboard model.
titan wrote:Additionally, be sure that the NIC you're attaching to the network really is capable of gigabit speeds before you start freaking out. A gigabit switch alone won't get you gigabit speeds. The reason I say that is because I thought one of my computers had an integrated gigabit Ethernet NIC. It didn't.
titan wrote:What were your transfer speeds before you put the gigabit switch in place of the 100Mb switch?
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Anything over 12.5 MB/sec is definitely going faster than a 100mbit will allow. This corresponds to roughly 12% on the utilization. Getting somewhere around 30% sustained for small-medium size files should be expected, I would think.
notfred wrote:dkrum wrote:notfred wrote:To check network throughput, use Iperf @ http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/#download
Do I need to run that on both PCs, one as a server? What cmd-line switches do you use?
You need to run it on both PCs. Run it as a server on one PC with "iperf -s" and on the client pc "iperf -c fred" where fred is the name of the PC running the server.
For gigabit on a PCI you should see ~700Mbps and PCI-E should be >900Mbps. If you are substantially less then you have a network problem. If you are close to these speeds but file copies are slow then you have a storage subsystem problem.
blue_bludger wrote:You could always try this tool {dkrum: pcattcp} which does a memory to memory transfer test thus bypassing disks. I've used it in the past and it worked quite well.
dkrum wrote:IIRC PC1 is configured as the, oh what's it called, master controller or something?
computron9000 wrote:Looks to me like something is wrong with PC1. Try forcing 1000 on PC1 instead of auto-negotiating.
notfred wrote:Maybe try something like an Ubuntu 8.04 live CD
computron9000 wrote:15 feet is not a long CAT-5 run. Anything around 250-300 feet is considered long
titan wrote:Primary Domain Controller (PDC)?
dkrum wrote:computron9000 wrote:Looks to me like something is wrong with PC1. Try forcing 1000 on PC1 instead of auto-negotiating.
Yep, I was thinking that's what the #s are indicating. Setting it to 1000/full duplex, iperf xfers are 130 & 126 Mbps. A couple test file transfers (using TeraCopy) came in at 10 MB/s (wouldn't that be 80 Mbps?). Hmmm.... wish I had an extra PCI gigabit NIC lying around to see what that might do.
...
(BTW, iperf defaults to 63KB TCP window size when run as client and 8KB when run as server. Don't know if that means anything. I've also played around with various settings-- buffer size, tcp window size, nodelay, mtu, udp-- and specifying my own MPG files-- everything is around 130 Mbps for PC1 -> PC2.)
dkrum wrote:Oooohhh, live CD. I've recently tried creating a boot CD but got stuck trying to get other utilities onto it. You have a link that makes this an easy process? This brain is getting fried. Back in the day I relished this kind of tinkering.
computron9000 wrote:Eventually, you'll see what effects the speed, but I disagree with the post above that suggests 80mbps is acceptable speed for 1000mbps LAN transfers. 10MB/sec sustained is slow, even for old, crappy hard drives and there is more than ample bandwidth on such a small 1000mbps network.