A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

1 Gigibit Ethernet - Slow?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 22nd 04, 11:53 PM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:43:44 GMT, "DaveW" wrote:

GB ethernet will run over Cat. 5 cable no faster than 100 Mbps. GB ethernet
requires Cat. 6 cable.


Although CAT5 only requires 2 pair of wires, "almost" every CAT5, 5e cable
does have 4 pair, certainly 5e is acceptable for use with Gb unless cable
runs are quite long. CAT5 "can" work too, shouldn't be restricting speed
to 100Mb level. However, in this particular instance it could be
significant that the cable is a crossover, if only two pair are crossed.
  #12  
Old May 23rd 04, 07:11 AM
*Vanguard*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Trent© said in :
On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:26:40 GMT, "Brandon Brown"
wrote:

That's a VERY good idea... I should try that.


You better have a fast stop watch...unless they've radically changed
the limitations of ram drives!


So transfer the same file a hundred or a thousand times for a repeated
overwrite.


  #13  
Old May 23rd 04, 10:39 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:11:03 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
wrote:

Trent© said in :
On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:26:40 GMT, "Brandon Brown"
wrote:

That's a VERY good idea... I should try that.


You better have a fast stop watch...unless they've radically changed
the limitations of ram drives!


So transfer the same file a hundred or a thousand times for a repeated
overwrite.



Huh? What's wrong with just transferring a 300MB single file? I suppose
he'd have to hunt down a 3rd party ramdrive driver though.
  #14  
Old May 23rd 04, 07:51 PM
*Vanguard*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kony said in :
On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:11:03 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
wrote:

Trent© said in :
On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:26:40 GMT, "Brandon Brown"
wrote:

That's a VERY good idea... I should try that.

You better have a fast stop watch...unless they've radically changed
the limitations of ram drives!


So transfer the same file a hundred or a thousand times for a
repeated overwrite.



Huh? What's wrong with just transferring a 300MB single file? I
suppose he'd have to hunt down a 3rd party ramdrive driver though.


I assumed Trent was thinking the 64MB file on a 64MB ramdrive. Isn't
the max size for, say, the Microsoft ramdrive and many other freebie
ramdrive utilities about 64MB (I don't use a ramdrive)? A 64MB transfer
might finish too quickly that you wouldn't get enough time to make an
accurate measurement to compute the transfer rate. So I figure you
could transfer the file as many times as it takes to get about 10, or
more, seconds worth of traffic. Anything under a second would have too
much variance to make a good measurement; a difference of half a second
for a 1 second max measure is a lot more variance than half a second for
a 10 second measure, and the longer your total time the more accurate
the measurement. The OP said he was getting around 3MBps so, yeah, it
would take 20 seconds to transfer a 64MB file but that's under whatever
is currently throttling his throughput and will probably not exist when
using a ramdrive. If the OP got just half of the 127MBps from the PCI
bus when using a ramdrive, his transfer of a 64MB file would be under a
second which is way too short for an accurate measurement.

The OP wouldn't need 1000 copy commands in a .bat file. He could just
run "FOR /L %variable IN (start,step,end) DO command
[command-parameters]" from a command prompt. The idea is to generate
enough traffic over a long enough time period to provide a reasonable
measurement. I'd just keep upping the end value until the transfer of
all copies took around 10 seconds. However, it would be difficult to
keep track of how many times the FOR look had looped: couting hundreds
or thousands of lines of output would be too arduous, and not possible
unless the DOS window were configured to enlarge its buffer to thousands
of lines. Run the following:

for /l %i in (1,1,N) do (
copy src dest nul
echo Copy %1 completed.
)

You can put this in a .bat file. You can also run this from the command
prompt: you get a "More?" prompt until you close the compound statement
(i.e., enter the closing parenthesis). I would start out with N = 10
and move up from there, like to 100, multiples of 100, 1000, multiples
of 1000, until I got 10 seconds worth of traffic. You know the size of
the file, how many times it got transferred, and the time it took.


--
__________________________________________________ __________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email: domain = ".com" and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________


  #15  
Old May 23rd 04, 10:37 PM
Geir Klemetsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"*Vanguard*" skrev i melding
...
Trent© said in :
On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:26:40 GMT, "Brandon Brown"
wrote:

That's a VERY good idea... I should try that.


You better have a fast stop watch...unless they've radically changed
the limitations of ram drives!


So transfer the same file a hundred or a thousand times for a repeated
overwrite.


Set up a ramdrive on both machines.
Write down the folder path for the folder/file you want to copy from/to and
write it down, and sent as reply to the newsgroup, and I can make you a
*.vbs -file that copy the file(s)
and measures the time it takes. It's a very simple task, takes me about 5
min to write.
That will make it possible to get accurate measurment even if the time it
takes is less than 1/100 second.
And, of course I'm courious what the result will be.


  #16  
Old May 24th 04, 06:03 AM
Noozer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brandon Brown" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
I bought 2 Dlink DGE-530T 1000 Mbps (1 Gbps) Ethernet cards to replace my
10/100 Mbps. To test it, I installed on 2 WinXP computers and linked with

a
Cat 5
crossover cable. The icons on the system tray showed "Speed: 1 Gbps" on

both
computers

Then, I tried to download some files form one computer to another using

both
Share drive and Webserver, the result was so disappointed... on average
it's about 3 MB/sec which is about 24 Mbps -- 24% of 100 Mbps!!! My old
10/100 Mbps could do the same???!!!! I assume 1000 Mbps would give me at
least 200 Mbps in trasfer speed! Am I correct?



I get peaks of up to 25%, but that's with very large files. The bottleneck
at this point is the speed of the IDE drive or PCI bus.


  #17  
Old May 26th 04, 01:09 AM
Noozer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's a VERY good idea... I should try that.

You better have a fast stop watch...unless they've radically changed
the limitations of ram drives!


So transfer the same file a hundred or a thousand times for a repeated
overwrite.



Huh? What's wrong with just transferring a 300MB single file? I suppose
he'd have to hunt down a 3rd party ramdrive driver though.


Just remember guys... transferring a bunch of little files won't give you
the same throughput as one single large file - even from a RAMDISK. To
really see the different make 1000 1K files (or a BAT to copy the same one
1000 times) and then make a single 1000K file. Copy each across the LAN
(even at 100mb) and watch the Network tab of the Taskmanager and see what
percentage of network utilization you get.

Best bet, get some benchmark software and it will generate the data as fast
as the CPU can go...

RAMDISK would work if you could greate something as big as a gigabyte or
two... Theoretically, a one gigabyte file would only take 8 seconds to copy
(8 bits to a byte) over a gigabit network (it'll never happen that fast
though).

....it's all moot anyhow as in real life the files will only go as fast as
the hard drive can move them.



  #18  
Old May 26th 04, 05:21 AM
CBFalconer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Noozer wrote:

.... snip ...

Just remember guys... transferring a bunch of little files won't
give you the same throughput as one single large file - even from
a RAMDISK. To really see the different make 1000 1K files (or a
BAT to copy the same one 1000 times) and then make a single 1000K
file. Copy each across the LAN (even at 100mb) and watch the
Network tab of the Taskmanager and see what percentage of network
utilization you get.


Better yet, use the virtual memory abilities to generate a really
big RAMDISK, with the VM on a networked drive. Then run your
tests. g, d, & r

--
Chuck F ) )
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address!


  #19  
Old May 27th 04, 07:55 AM
Big Mac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Try copying a large file or folder, like some movies, from one part of
the same hard drive to the other. It can only go so fast. I think
you might be limited by hard drive speed.

"Brandon Brown" wrote:
I bought 2 Dlink DGE-530T 1000 Mbps (1 Gbps) Ethernet cards to replace my
10/100 Mbps. To test it, I installed on 2 WinXP computers and linked with a
Cat 5
crossover cable. The icons on the system tray showed "Speed: 1 Gbps" on both
computers

Then, I tried to download some files form one computer to another using both
Share drive and Webserver, the result was so disappointed... on average
it's about 3 MB/sec which is about 24 Mbps -- 24% of 100 Mbps!!! My old
10/100 Mbps could do the same???!!!! I assume 1000 Mbps would give me at
least 200 Mbps in trasfer speed! Am I correct?

Did I do something wrong? Is there something I need to setup in Windows,
registry or some settings in driver to
get faster speed? please help.

Thanks




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slow network Michael Culley General 0 May 9th 04 02:17 PM
Slow BIOS News Groupie General 0 March 18th 04 05:30 PM
Integrated Ethernet not working Chris Fonville General 7 February 23rd 04 07:43 PM
Slow hard drive in windows XP Wayne Morgan General 1 January 25th 04 09:11 PM
ethernet hardware question Someone Somewhere General 43 October 29th 03 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.