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...
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...
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/...
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...
The NF2 chipset has a reputation of being about the best chipset of its kind, but unfortunately, despite that, it's the biggest limitation of your current setup, and improving on that amounts to replacing the motherboard, cpu, etc..
Chipsets of that generation force you to use PCI gigabit...
More details? Motherboard, NIC, OS, storage controller, file system?
Contrary to some other opinions, I'd want jumbo frame support especially when the system is less than stellar.
A new unit should have a lifetime warranty (except for the power supply unit), while a Netgear refurb would have a 30 day or so warranty, and some higher chance of failure. I'd go with a new unit for this reason if I could afford it.
According to an old Netgear support page, jumbo frames are...
Some revisions of the GS116 do support jumbo frames, which can help especially with older / lower-end hardware such as some consumer NAS boxes, but is probably otherwise not worth the trouble.
I've seen great throughput with a DAP-1522, but it doesn't have to go very far here.
You might have better luck with the Linksys WET610N. One shortcoming is that it doesn't have a built-in switch, but you can add one.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30778/96/1/1/
No, if you have a gigabit switch connected to a gigabit NIC, then it'll negotiate 1000 Mb/s, not 100 Mb/s, regardless of what the other ports are linked at.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948066
This article said that the effect could be seen even when playing was paused, but it's dated:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=717&tag=rbxccnbzd1
You can't cross chipset vendors with on-board (or any other) RAID, so the brand and of course type of RAID matters. However, you can often cross chipset versions from the same brand provided that the destination chipset is at least a capable as the origin chipset.
In addition, you...
Try disabling any local firewalls.
Try a wired connection to factor out the wireless and the router altogether (which would then just be acting as a DHCP server and switch for LAN purposes).
Does your computer hang or crash often? In that case, I wouldn't recommend turning on write caching. I'd even suggest keeping your data on a separate server altogether.
All systems will have difficulty with hangs or crashes in the middle of writing a file. Some systems will be able to...
Yes, there's a slightly greater risk. If your system or power is unstable, then it's ill-advised to enable the write-back cache.
In general, it's an option for the user to use or not use, with trade-offs as always.
Sure, if it's no additional cost, use 2008.
Yes, controller-based RAID 5 -> array which looks like a drive -> folders -> share folders. It's essentially the same on any Windows OS. If your router doesn't support gigabit, get an inexpensive gigabit switch and connect that to your router and...
RAID can be used with WHS, but is not typically used or supported. For a home setup, I don't think it makes sense to pay the premium for a server OS, so I'd suggest Vista instead.
The next question would be which RAID controller you'd use. At this size, it's probably best to get an 8-port...
Standard-g ("54 Mb/s") doesn't actually give you 54 Mb/s throughput. Under ideal conditions, it gives at best around 22 Mb/s actual throughput. As 2 MB/s = 16 Mb/s, your wireless transfer is right in the normal range for standard-g.
What's strange is your report that Vista wireless...
For a transfer from a Vista client to 2003, if everything's "tuned", you should pretty much be bottlenecked by the HD's and the network.
E.g. 10GB file transfer at ~110 MB/s from Vista to 2003, using RAID on both ends (MS shows MiB/s but labels it MB/s):
The DGL-4300 is a nice router, but its wireless is not. You could even consider disabling its wireless and adding another wireless router configured only as an access point in order to upgrade the wireless and leave the rest as-is. I probably wouldn't bother though unless you have draft-n...