Dual NICs and bridging for better browsing??

A

APOLLO

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - March 2009
Joined
Sep 17, 2000
Messages
9,089
This topic may have been discussed but I couldn't find it by searching. I have a motherboard with 2 NICs onboard and was wondering if bridging them would improve internet browsing by making the connection more efficient? I'm connected to the internet with DSL using a modem/router combo (Siemens Speedstream 6520). I read somewhere on another forum that bridging identical NICs to a router would ease bottlenecks and actually make for a better browsing experience especially when DL large files. Anyone try this or know if it works??
 
DSL will only consume maybe 0.1 - 1 % of your NIC's ability, and bridging would not be the configuration to do what you're thinking. I'm sure you're wanting to use them as 1 connection, which would be called "Aggrigation" or "teaming"

This is generally reserved for enterprise class serving, and would require a very expensive switch to handle it.
 
OK, I tried what was outlined in the linked thread and everything appears to be working. I seem to notice that browsing is better during heavy DL/UL, but I'm wondering if there is a placebo effect involved here. Also, just like the people in the other thread, one of my NIC icons in the taskbar is not lighting up, only the bridge icon and the second NIC icon light up. Is there an app that I can use to determine network activity on individual NICs in graphical form?
 
There is most certainly a placebo effect in action. The link from your computer to your switch is most definitely NOT the limiting factor in downloading and uploading on the internet. I didn't read that thread thoroughly, but I didn't see any hard numbers anywhere. All I saw was a bunch of people saying it "felt" faster, which, given the circumstances, is most likely a result of the placebo effect. It also doesn't sound like any of those guys actually know what they are talking about. Most of them seem to have a passing knowledge of networking and now deem themselves experts. The only way I could see this setup helping is if the original setup is either misconfigured or uses shit equipment, and this new setup is compensating for that.

DUMeter is a good interface monitoring tool that I used to use back in the day. I don't know if it is still free or not or if it is even still around.
 
After reading the post what i am interpreting is that they are using the bridge feature to enable use of 2 separate internet connection, such as one connection to a cable modem, and one connection to a DSL line.

This would be a way to load balance 2 connections, but it won't actually make anything "faster" What it will do is make your internet connection wider. What you will see is that some requests will go out of one gateway, and others will transport via the second gateway.

While it is possible for this to work, it would only work in a "half assed" sort of way, as there is noting in place to actually control where any requests go, and you will end up having a ton of collision.

There are routers available that would actually load balance the connections properly. Even in this scenario, you would only actually consume around 10 - 12 Mbs worth of your 100 or 1000 Mbs NIC, leaving plenty of room for more.

That being said, unless you are willing to shell out an extra 30 - 60 bucks a month for a second ISP, you WILL NOT garner any more bandwidth by having 2 NICs plugged into a single cable modem, DSL line, T1, DS3, etc, until you get to the point that the bandwidth from the provider actually exceeds what your NIC can handle.

If you want to have a speedier browser while you are doing some heavy downloading, I suggest you run your browser at a higher priority level, and your downloads at a minimal priority level.
 
jpmkm: said:
There is most certainly a placebo effect in action. The link from your computer to your switch is most definitely NOT the limiting factor in downloading and uploading on the internet. I didn't read that thread thoroughly, but I didn't see any hard numbers anywhere. All I saw was a bunch of people saying it "felt" faster, which, given the circumstances, is most likely a result of the placebo effect. It also doesn't sound like any of those guys actually know what they are talking about. Most of them seem to have a passing knowledge of networking and now deem themselves experts. The only way I could see this setup helping is if the original setup is either misconfigured or uses shit equipment, and this new setup is compensating for that.

DUMeter is a good interface monitoring tool that I used to use back in the day. I don't know if it is still free or not or if it is even still around.
Click to expand...
Although one or two of the posters may posess some networking knowledge, I agree with everything you say especially since no actual benchmarking was conducted to determine what if any benefits were derived from bridging multiple NICs to one WAN.

I am currently running DU Meter, but it does not display individual network connection graphs if you are using more than one. You can display only one or all in a combined graph. I wonder if there's an app that can display each connection graph individually and simultaneously?

phreakpiercer:

The intent of the original poster in that thread was to increase performance of a single internet connection by supposedly eliminating inefficiencies such as bottlenecks between the computer and router/WAN. The topic evolved into a discussion of a dual WAN setup about two thirds down the thread. I concur regarding the impossibility of a bottleneck between the computer and internet connection. The experiment was an interesting one, though.

Concering what you mentioned about tweaking browser priority, do you mean the process priority in Task Manager?? Forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but I can't see how that would improve browsing performance...??
 
phreakpiercer said:
After reading the post what i am interpreting is that they are using the bridge feature to enable use of 2 separate internet connection, such as one connection to a cable modem, and one connection to a DSL line.

This would be a way to load balance 2 connections, but it won't actually make anything "faster" What it will do is make your internet connection wider. What you will see is that some requests will go out of one gateway, and others will transport via the second gateway.
Click to expand...

Bridging does not do that. All the Windows bridging does is put 2 or more NIC's together as though they were on the same physical LAN. No load balancing/sharing/default gateway round robin going on with that.

The post from infoprosjoint is full of misinformation. He claims that the 'randomadapter' registry key in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NetBT\Parameters is for load balancing internet connections. That is not true.

From Microsoft:
If a multihomed machine receives a broadcast name query, all NetBT-interface bindings receiving the query respond with their addresses, and by default the client chooses the first response and connects to the address supplied by it. This behavior can be controlled by the RandomAdapter registry parameter described in Appendix B.

All that key does is alternate which IP it hands out when it has to respond to a NetBios name query.

There is simply no way to speed up your internet connection using 2 NIC's on a desktop computer.
 
From the other forum..

Bandwidth can be increased on a computer running Win XP with Dual NIC's connected to seperate internet or LAN connections
Click to expand...

By using 2 ethernet cards with ONE internet connection is not "seperate internet or LAN connections".

There will be no speed, or bandwidth benifits by doing so. As other have pointed out the bottleneck is from your internet connection not the computers ethernet interfaces.
 
Although one or two of the posters may posess some networking knowledge
Click to expand...
much to almost everything they have communicated is a fallacy. i laughed at the hardware information for how incorrect it is.

.also, with the 2 NICS, users must be very careful as to how they set them up in the BIOS for IRQ's......all my PCI slots are now full, but XP still installed fine.........however, I dumped ACPI and now my IRQ limit is 128 instead of 18.............far better stability..........what I did in the BIOS for the NICs was to put the side by side in the PCI slots and force the same IRQ for both.......and chose a low IRQ value..........this would insure a clean boot....when XP takes over, it then reasigns separate IRQ's and in my case, the are 40 and 44............they were 3 in the BIOS.........I chose 10 in the BIOS for the video card, and in XP it is 128...............I chose 11 for the IDE PCI UDMA 133 controller card, it must be a high number, and in XP it is 48...........then I chose 5 for the Santa Cruz sound and TV cards, XP gave them 36 and 52.............
Click to expand...
such ignorance
 
OK, it is in, and working..............and yes, there is a difference...........perhaps as much as 30% more, although it is too early to tell.
There is not increase in internet test speed................I am capped at 140/40, and there it remainns........however.........the performance increase is in, as I thought, getting rid of the bottlenecks..........I am presently downloading a large file at 130kBs and 6 torrents at 120KBs and of course I am here. That means that I am receiving at 260KBs, but my internet connection is actually only 140KBs, and CowGod tests it at 139KBs........neat..........
Click to expand...

I have verified the fastest connection type.......it is with both NICs set to 'Auto' for connection speed in the device manager, then you bridge the 2 with the modem off, then turn the modem on..........this will give you the best speed on the LAN and WAN....at 100MBps......do this with ONLY your machine plugged in the LAN, all others are unplugged, but reboot the router first, this will clear the DHCP server of address's in the router, then it will assign your 2 NICs the lowest IPs from the pool.....when the bridge comes on line, it will be the third IP..........this has to be done so that you know what IPs to open for port forwarding for server applications.........assign the bridge's IP for port forwarding..........You will have to reboot all other machines unplugged and then plug each one in so the the DHCP server will assign the new IP address's................
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
Seriously, where the fuck do these people get their information? I can't even make up shit like that. It just blows my mind.
 
rofl!

Its like my mums shutdown *count to 10* power up - restarts ...

these people must have mild OCD or something .. running round turning machiens off and stuff .. LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top