Recent content by Madwand

The "Vistesse" vs "Marvell" business is quite strange if you think about it. It's an nVIDIA chipset, and likely has a native nVIDIA network controller, which has the capability to significantly out-perform an added-on Marvell PCI controller of that day. The "Vitesse" label also covers up the...

You have the right idea in theory. As to whether or not there are quirks with the implementation of the gear which cause problems, that can't be known without trying the specific gear. You should get the AP connecting in client mode before going any further. The docs were specific about a...

For speed capability, it's no contest -- Vista or later wins. Of course, if you're severely HD or network constrained, then they all may be around the same slow speed. E.g., a comparison done using the same hardware varying the client OS, using Vista as the "server". This is a slightly...

That's pretty good for untuned XP file transfers. More typical is around 25 MB/s.

They also had a simple video of client mode setup, which presumably could be adapted for the bridge mode. I think both are currently unavailable due to some web site / bandwidth problems they're having. Here's another article on client/bridge mode setup. Disclaimer: I haven't tried to...

That's a very optimistic minimum, as there are lots of things which can be hard to understand and get right for a networking novice, or even a non-networking novice when the third-party stuff doesn't work as expected under some conditions / configurations.

You probably meant the WL-520gU. It supports the full version of DD-WRT, and is apparently also supported by Tomato. After rebate, it's also nominally cheaper than the WL-520gC, and even if not, I'd say that it was the better buy for the above reasons. Tomato support could be especially...

No, the tests are for the same block size and duration -- the difference between the first set of results and the second is the direction of transfer. The first is from the 'client' to the 'server', and the second (triggered by the -r parameter) are the reverse, from the 'server' to the...

Good to see these early results. I suggest using iperf version 1.7 to simplify the throughput measurements. http://www.noc.ucf.edu/Tools/Iperf/default.htm E.g. server: iperf -s client: iperf -c server -l 64k -t 15 -i 5 -r where server is the name or IP of the remote computer...

Lower CPU utilization, better throughput, and better bus utilization with the Marvell PCIe.

Do a local wireless to wired benchmark to see your maximum wireless performance, e.g. using the tool and technique shown in this thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420738 Maximum actual transfer performance with 802.11g is around 23 Mb/s under ideal conditions, which are...

Try a network benchmark to factor out the drive subsystem, file transfer protocol, etc. E.g. iperf version 1.7: server: iperf -s client: iperf -c server -l 64k -t 15 -i 3 -r where server is the name or IP of the remote computer running iperf -s. http://www.noc.ucf.edu/Tools/Iperf/...

You could still use that with an appropriate cable.

Doesn't the P5K Deluxe already have another on-board controller -- a JMicron? In that case, you could do something like the following: Switch the OS drive to the JMicron controller (enable and install drivers if needed) Confirm that it boots into Windows. Reboot, enable Intel RAID in the...

You should be able to see the difference in "raw" networking benchmarks on the throughput and CPU utilization, and similarly during file transfers. The best way to check this, as with anything performance-related, is to do actual measurements in context, which in your case would amount to...