Ethernet vs USB 1.1 File Transfer or Download Speed Difference?

Susan wrote:
I have a cable modem with both Ethernet and USB outputs (one or the other,
not both). The ISP for the cable modem service says that the USB speed is
less then the Ethernet speed but didn't know how much less--now whether the
cable modem USB port was 1.1 or 2.0.

Both of my 'puters have USB 1.1 ports and Ethernet ports. I believe the
Ethernet speed is suppose to be 10/100 Mbps and when the ports are enabled
it says they are running at 100 Mbps.

Does USB 1.1 have a maximum transfer rate speed and if so what is it?

12Mbps


If I hooked up two computers via USB 1.1 to a router for a LAN and compared
the transfer speed difference of a large enough file to the same computers
hooked up via Ethernet to the same router, what speed difference would I
likely see or measure--roughly?

You can't hook up two computers via USB.


If my download speed is 1.2 G bits / second would that equal a file
transfer rate of 150 M bytes / second (forgetting about overhead things)?

You can't get 1.2 G bit download speeds on either cable or DSL. Otherwise, yes.

Application: Currently I have two machines hooked up via an Ethernet router
and cable modem--all things being equal. I'm switching to a DSL
modem/router with 1 Ethernet port and 1 USB port and wireless. The
download speed will be less more often then not. But I really don't want
the machine using USB to be running appreciably slower then the Ethernet
machine? Will I be hard pressed to measure a difference?

Personally, I'd get an ethernet switch and run them both ethernet.

Thanks.

Susan

Susan wrote:

Anther possible approach to this question/problem. If USB 1.1 is a
significant degradation down from 100 Mbps Ethernet is there a way of
converting the USB DSL router port inline to Ethernet?

Once I get the equipment next Monday hopefully I can have a field day
moving a large file around and figuring out what actual transfer rates I
get but if there is definitive knowledge that using USB 1.1 really isn't
much less then 100 Mbps then there may be no reason to spend the
time--although I'm kind of interested in the exercise now.

And, of course, if there is a significant difference then what to do?
Actiontec said that I cannot run an Ethernet Hub into the DSL Router
because the router would only see one computer (Is that a problem?).

Yes, that would be a problem but you'd have to tell us what DSL router it
is they're providing to know if what he said is true.

And I
cannot run a router into a router because of the conflict that produces.

That's hogwash. Routers go into routers all the time, not that you need
another router. A switch, or hub, should be sufficient. Whether there's
something bizarre about *their* router is another matter.

The DSL router can be turned off apparently but the tech made it sound
quite complicated to do properly.

My best hope is that USB 1.1 on my laptop really will give me very close to
Ethernet transfer rates--then I don't really have any problem with the
equipment solution.

For a notebook you should get a wireless card since you're going to have a
wireless router.


Thank you.

Susan

David Maynard wrote:

You can't hook up two computers via USB.

That's mostly true, you need a device like this one to accomplish that:
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/usbmain.htm

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

spodosaurus wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

You can't hook up two computers via USB.


That's mostly true, you need a device like this one to accomplish that:
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/usbmain.htm


Interesting gadget.

The speed, at 4 Mbps, is a bit slow though.

"Susan" wrote...
I have a cable modem with both Ethernet and USB outputs (one or the other,
not both). The ISP for the cable modem service says that the USB speed is
less then the Ethernet speed but didn't know how much less--now whether the
cable modem USB port was 1.1 or 2.0.

Both of my 'puters have USB 1.1 ports and Ethernet ports. I believe the
Ethernet speed is suppose to be 10/100 Mbps and when the ports are enabled
it says they are running at 100 Mbps.

USB 1.1 maxes out at 12 Mbps.

Cable modems max out at around 14 Mbps, but most are "throttled" down
significantly below that. The best I ever had was 5.5 Mbps with the old @home,
and Comcast is now 3 Mbps.

100 Mbps Ethernet is more reliable, even if speed is not an issue. Use Ethernet
if able.

If you are saddled with a single-port modem/router, buy a simple Ethernet
"switch" (switched hub), connect it to the modem/router, and then connect your
computers to that. You can also use a second router (e.g., wired + wireless)
for the same purpose.

Susan wrote:
What a goofball I am...where to start...

The Qwest DSL modem is an Actiontec GT701. It has wireless, 1 Ethernet
port, and 1 USB port. I might assume its USB is 2.0.

Lucky me, from your mention of Actiontec, and getting DSL, I guessed it was
the GT701, or GT701-wg.


If 1.1 USB is only 12 Mbps what is 2.0 max transfer speed?

480 Mbps


If my max Internet download rate is 1.5 Mbps (I don't know how I got giga
on the brain) then the max USB 1.1 of 12 Mbps is more then adequate?

Yep.


The problem then is connectivity speed between machines and not the
Internet with Cable or DSL.

Correct.


I am currently running my desktop and laptop Ethernet ports into a router
and the router Ethernet into a cable modem.

Typical arrangement. I do the same on DSL, except my router is also wireless.

If running the router into the
DSL router Ethernet port isn't _any_ problem then that is the easiest
solution.

It's redundant. All you need to a switch, or a hub (switch preferred), to
expand the ethernet ports on the GT701-wg.

It's analogous to what you have now except bundled differently. The
component parts are modem - router - switch/hub. Your cable modem is
separate with the other two together. Your Quest DSL has the modem and
router in the same box and you need a switch/hub added.

But the straight router has a built in firewall that cannot be
turned off and I don't know what I can or cannot configure on the Actiontec
GT701.

Then get the manual. http://actiontecstore.com/qwest/supp2.html

Come to think of it, what cable modem/router is it? If you're keeping that
it might be possible to just use the switch/hub portion like I did with my
wireless/WAN router before I got the DSL. I.E. you just don't use the WAN
(cable) modem.

If it can be configured properly you'd turn off it's (cable router) DHCP,
since you'll be using the DHCP on the DSL router. Your gateway address
(which the DSL router will set anyway) would be the DSL router and the
cable modem router is doing nothing. Just use the 4 port switch. Well,
might be a problem with the cable router not having an uplink port, but if
it's a full negotiation auto switch that might still work.

BTW, Actiontec makes a GT704 with 4 Ethernet ports and wireless.
That might have been the slickest way for machine to machine speed but it
is not a Qwest option.

Ah HAH. Qwest. Then it's the GT701-wg (uses special firmware, according to
Quest).

Check the FAQ for it here. http://actiontecstore.com/qwest/supp2-faqs.html

Q: I have run out of Ethernet plugs on my DSL Modem with Wireless Gateway.
How do I add more computers?

A: Plugging in an Ethernet hub or switch can expand the number of computers
that is connected to the DSL Modem. Run a standard Ethernet cable from the
UPLINK port of your new hub or switch to Yellow Port on the back of the DSL
Modem.

Ethernet transfer rate is 100 Mbps which is roughly eight times faster then
USB 1.1 at 12 Mbps and roughly twice as fast as wireless-G at 54 Mbps.

Yes. Plus 54Mbps G's throughput is more like 26Mbps. Wireless has
significant overhead.

Both my desktop and laptop USB capability is USB 1.1. I could get a USB
2.0 PCMCIA card?

I imagine so.

Would it then approach 100 Mbps to match the max Ethernet
rate? I could then use it in the laptop to the Actiontec GT701 and avoid a
second router or switch?

I can't tell. The only thing the Actiontec user manual AND their specs say
about USB is simply "USB port", and that the provided cable is purple. The
"USB Port" could be anything.


The Wireless-G card for the laptop be dropping my max file transfer rate
between machines from 100 Mbps to 54 Mbps--in half.

Actually, worse. See above.

I would use this card
for wireless Internet applications only when warranted.

I now need to learn what the USB 2.0 max transfer rate is because having
that PCMCIA card would benefit the laptop with faster picture transfer from
the printer camera card ports, or mp3 file transfer to my mp3 player?

If they're USB 2 as well then yes.


Thanks.

Susan wrote:

"John Weiss" wrote:


100 Mbps Ethernet is more reliable, even if speed is not an issue. Use Ethernet
if able.


How fast does USB 2.0 go? If it approached 100 Mbps it might be a good
addition to the laptop since I have other USB applications that could use
the speed increase if significant enough.


If you are saddled with a single-port modem/router, buy a simple Ethernet
"switch" (switched hub), connect it to the modem/router, and then connect your
computers to that. You can also use a second router (e.g., wired + wireless)
for the same purpose.


I am currently using a router into my cable modem. It sounds like I can
run it into the DSL router and be done with the problem? But I don't think
it is a very clean way since I will be triple firewalling if I do nothing.
The router firewall cannot be turned off.

Can I get a small two port (3 port) switch? And whose?

Thanks.

At some point it isn't economical to make them any 'smaller' because you
still need a case, power supply, etc. 4 and 5 port switches are the small
side with 5 port being the most common (5'th port for the uplink, which you
want for connecting to the DSL router).

They're pretty cheap. Here is an example.

http://www.pcimicro.com/.sc/ms/dd/10...520Switch%2520

USB 1.1 has a maximum data rate speed of 12 Mbps.
USB 2.0 has a maximum data rate speed of 480 Mbps.

--
DaveW



"Susan" wrote in message
...
I have a cable modem with both Ethernet and USB outputs (one or the other,
not both). The ISP for the cable modem service says that the USB speed is
less then the Ethernet speed but didn't know how much less--now whether
the
cable modem USB port was 1.1 or 2.0.

Both of my 'puters have USB 1.1 ports and Ethernet ports. I believe the
Ethernet speed is suppose to be 10/100 Mbps and when the ports are enabled
it says they are running at 100 Mbps.

Does USB 1.1 have a maximum transfer rate speed and if so what is it?

If I hooked up two computers via USB 1.1 to a router for a LAN and
compared
the transfer speed difference of a large enough file to the same computers
hooked up via Ethernet to the same router, what speed difference would I
likely see or measure--roughly?

If my download speed is 1.2 G bits / second would that equal a file
transfer rate of 150 M bytes / second (forgetting about overhead things)?

Application: Currently I have two machines hooked up via an Ethernet
router
and cable modem--all things being equal. I'm switching to a DSL
modem/router with 1 Ethernet port and 1 USB port and wireless. The
download speed will be less more often then not. But I really don't want
the machine using USB to be running appreciably slower then the Ethernet
machine? Will I be hard pressed to measure a difference?

Thanks.

Susan

Susan wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


Susan wrote:


Would it then approach 100 Mbps to match the max Ethernet
rate? I could then use it in the laptop to the Actiontec GT701 and avoid a
second router or switch?


I can't tell. The only thing the Actiontec user manual AND their specs say
about USB is simply "USB port", and that the provided cable is purple. The
"USB Port" could be anything.


Ain't that the truth. It's almost as though no one knows there is a huge
application difference between 1.1 and 2.0 so they don't think about it. I
spent way to long on the phone with Actiontec and Qwest and ironed out the
whole thing though not to Qwest's satisfaction.

The USB port on the GT401 is 1.1--isn't that lame to build into a modern
router--why not USB 2.0 so you could maybe go four times faster then
Ethernet?

Uh, go "4 times faster" to 'what'? The other computer... that's on ethernet?

I think they know the difference but, by glancing over the user manual, I
get the impression they consider the USB port a 'special case' that is
there simply for letting computers without an ethernet port get on the
internet but not as a 'preferred' means of making a local LAN connection.
And since USB 1.1 is plenty fast enough for the modem it's 'sufficient'.

Makes sense in some respects. Since only one computer could be on the USB
port anyway, and the rest would be on ethernet/wireless, you couldn't get
USB 2 speeds anyway (although it would still be faster than USB 1.1). So
you'd end up with 'X' computers on ethernet/wireless and one oddball on USB
and, in their mind, only because/if it didn't have an ethernet port.

I cancelled Qwest DSL because I didn't want to mess with possible router IP
address conflicts or double-firewalling or buying a hub or switch and
dumping the router--all because Qwest couldn't offer alternate DSL modem
situations for different needs.

I don't know what your motivation for moving from cable to DSL was in the
first place but it seems a shame to dump it simply for the 16 buck cost of
an ethernet switch/hub.

But I do understand the frustration of dealing with ISPs. I gather they
didn't cotton to dealing with a local LAN setup.

Mine was willing to listen till I mentioned subnet and then explained I'd
have to figure that out myself. Hehe. Which was fine because I wasn't
asking them about that anyway.


Do you wonder if there are any Actiontec customers out there who are
transferring files between their machines at 12 Mbps who don't know how
slow that is or don't care?

Probably don't care, or know any better, and I imagine a large number of
typical users don't move huge files between machines anyway, assuming
they're even locally networked.

Frankly, I'm still a bit amazed at how many people won't consider
networking them even when they have cable/dsl and multiple computers. It
just seems to scare them for no particular reason I can put my finger on.


So I'll stick it out with cable. I've learned a lot although it is
anyone's guess how long I will retain it. I might still get a wireless-G
router but right now I don't even need that.

Since I mentioned two USB applications that would greatly benefit with 2.0
that is what I should buy next for the laptop. Any USB 2.0 PCMCIA cards
any would like to recommend?

I don't have a recommendation. I'd just do a pricewatch check for a cheap one.

My wi-fi card protrudes up slightly as does all the USB cards making it
impossible to stack two cards together in my laptop--any solution to this
sort of problem besides using only one card at a time?

Thank you. I'm happy I have let DSL go.

Susan wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


I don't know what your motivation for moving from cable to DSL was in the
first place but it seems a shame to dump it simply for the 16 buck cost of
an Ethernet switch/hub.


There wasn't good enough reason in the end so that is why I'm not. My only
reason for wireless-G was some day on a future trip using it for Internet
access at hotel/motel/Internet cafe.

Yeah. I also like it for my notebook at home. Don't have to mess with the
cable.

I have another application going on
where I thought I could save installing a cable by switching to DSL. But
it turns out that that application will require two cables which means I
still need to install another cable to make two--might as well keep the
cable modem installation and install two more cables for the other
application. After realizing this I started beating my head over the DSL
modem network file transfer rate and realized how needless dropping to DSL
was.


Frankly, I'm still a bit amazed at how many people won't consider
networking them even when they have cable/dsl and multiple computers. It
just seems to scare them for no particular reason I can put my finger on.


Maybe they come up with questions they cannot answer and don't want to
spend a whole day on the phone or Internet trying to get answers?

Well, the cases I was thinking of I'm trying to talk them into it and there
isn't a lack of ISP 'cooperation' involved. They just don't see a lot of
use to it.


Even my current network is one that XP's Network Wizard does not recommend
using because each computer hooks up directly to the Internet and the
Wizard freaks out that the other computer is not protected. The Wizard
doesn't seem to know how to contend with the fact that the router has a
built-in firewall and that I have XP's firewall turned on in both machines.
It is easy to see how if you were following the advice of the Wizard you
would, at some point say, "I shouldn't do this".

That would be a deterrent, yes, but I don't know the case you're talking
about because I never use the wizard.

Actually, for DSL/cable, the 'work' is in the router/firewall because, once
it's DHCP is setup, it'll auto configure the Windows box, if one hasn't
messed with the network settings before hand.


Speaking of USB 2.0 and its 480 Mbps max transfer rate... Can one network
USB 2.0 at that rate? I just don't think you can hook up USB 2.0 NICs to a
USB hub but maybe there is a USB 2.0 Network Hub--not that I really ever
have to move large files that often that fast.

USB isn't designed for that kind of networking.

Someone on here posted a link to some USB 'adapters' that purported to
allow networking similar to an ethernet 'hub' arrangement but it's speed
was only 4Mbps.



Thanks.