• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

LAN speed question

D

DarkCyber

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,273
If you have computers networked together via a gigabit LAN, what would be the one single component that could increase your connection or transfer speed between the computers? i.e. hard drive speed in each computer, CPU speed in each computer, RAM in each computer...etc. The computers in question are running Windows 7.

I am looking at what you think is the single thing that could help speed up say large file or data transfers between computers on a gigabit LAN.
 
Filter said:
harddrive write access.
Click to expand...

^that

Smaller hard drives with smaller density platters wont write as fast. Its possible that newer 2 or 3TB drives will write around 60+MBps. But thats still slower than gigabit speed.
 
jadams said:
^that

Smaller hard drives with smaller density platters wont write as fast. Its possible that newer 2 or 3TB drives will write around 60+MBps. But thats still slower than gigabit speed.
Click to expand...
The 2TB EARS 3.5" can do a sustained 125 MB/s read and write. ;) And that's only the EARS model and Western Digital brand. I have heard that HITACHI's 2TB+ drive can outperform the EARS by like 20-50 MB/s more.

The next thing now is really just the IOPs. If you're doing network transfers, a 7-9ms access latency isn't so bad -- during transfer from file to file this latency won't even be noticed. It will only be noticed when you execute the command to start seeking for files and reading them, you will have to wait that 7-9ms, and then from thereafter it will be transparent until your transfer finishes.

The IOPs would be the next thing, but only if you are requesting so much simultaneously and on-demand.
 
HD access speed is what I had been told in the past, just making sure that was still current. So, would an SSD HD in both computers be a good route to go? Or something like a Raptor HD? etc.
 
It depends on the types of files and access.

one client copying one large file between servers may be able to hit the peak performance of a single SATA drive.

But throw in multiple concurrent users and your random access time becomes a lot more important. You can see it yourself, open up task manager and look at the network stats. Copy a large file and observe the same speed. Now start copying a 2nd file at the same time. Observe the change.

Likewise, copying a lot of small files is a problem. There is more random access and the windows file system itself isn't as quick.
 
aronesz said:
The 2TB EARS 3.5" can do a sustained 125 MB/s read and write. ;) And that's only the EARS model and Western Digital brand. I have heard that HITACHI's 2TB+ drive can outperform the EARS by like 20-50 MB/s more.

The next thing now is really just the IOPs. If you're doing network transfers, a 7-9ms access latency isn't so bad -- during transfer from file to file this latency won't even be noticed. It will only be noticed when you execute the command to start seeking for files and reading them, you will have to wait that 7-9ms, and then from thereafter it will be transparent until your transfer finishes.

The IOPs would be the next thing, but only if you are requesting so much simultaneously and on-demand.
Click to expand...

So, anything 125 MB/s or higher sustained would be better and try to stay with something 7 ms or less on latency?

I was just looking at some of the SSD hd's and of course they don't have access times. So, makes it a bit hard to compare the faster platter drives like the Raptor and the Savvio to the SSD hd specs.
 
I can't really contribute much more to the LAN side of this discussion, but I can say that when network latencies get higher, like in the double-digit ping times and more (such as when using a VPN / MPLS), using CIFS (think mapped drives) via Windows XP / Server 2003 / Samba starts to perform very poorly due to how chatty the SMBv1 protocol is. SMBv2 (Server 2008, Windows Vista / 7) is an improvement, but still not amazing.

Using FTP to transport files is more efficient.
 
Surprised this wasn't mentioned yet, but the particular Ethernet controllers in the systems will also make a difference. If you're using a flaky network controller instead of a proper Intel one, that'll be the bottleneck. My HTPC motherboard had a built-in Atheros controller and I couldn't get much more than 45-50MB/s out of it. Once I got a discrete Intel NIC, I was hitting 100MB/s or higher pretty consistently with large file transfers. All the systems on my home network are using either Realtek or Intel controllers. Those with Realtek are going to be upgraded to Intel ones in the future.
 
McTurkey said:
Surprised this wasn't mentioned yet, but the particular Ethernet controllers in the systems will also make a difference. If you're using a flaky network controller instead of a proper Intel one, that'll be the bottleneck. My HTPC motherboard had a built-in Atheros controller and I couldn't get much more than 45-50MB/s out of it. Once I got a discrete Intel NIC, I was hitting 100MB/s or higher pretty consistently with large file transfers. All the systems on my home network are using either Realtek or Intel controllers. Those with Realtek are going to be upgraded to Intel ones in the future.
Click to expand...

Any particular model or series of Intel Gigabit cards you're using?
 
I use a dual port i350 in my desktop but then again I'm crazy. What I really want is this, if I can ever find one at that recommended price. Really I'd want like 5 of those.
 
You might have issues attaining full gigabit speeds over PCI regardless of what card you get, it's theoretically possible but at the extreme end of 32bit 33MHz PCI capabilities. Even with something like the i350's you're never going to see the full 125MB/s as file transfer due to various protocol overheads. The best I ever see on my transfers is 115MB/s or so, which was a good improvement over the 80-90MB/s from my onboard NIC (which is a realtek). Given your only expansion options are PCI though you may not even see any noticable improvement over the integrated NIC just due to bus limitations. Unless you're getting really bad transfers like mcturkey's 45-50MB/s chances are you'll see minimal improvements.
 
Using LAN Speed Test I am getting roughly around 400-450 Mbps Write and 450-490 Mbps Read with the Realtek
 
DarkCyber said:
I am looking at what you think is the single thing that could help speed up say large file or data transfers between computers on a gigabit LAN.
Click to expand...

What's the problem? You're looking at solutions while you didn't even state the exact problem.
 
Speeding up the overall connection speed between two LAN pc's. I am already running Realtek gigabit cards in both and both are running 7,200 rpm hd's. One is running s Barracua and the other a WD. So, basically trying to speed things up between the two when they are having to access things back and forth.

These are the two SSD HD's I am trying to decide between

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233205

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211569

Anyone got a suggestion either way on these?
 
Last edited:
Has anyone mentioned Jumbo packets? tuning TCP? Ensuring you're on the latest stable driver and doing Checksum offloading, etc?

That can do a hell of a lot more than throwing in an SSD.

With overhead you're probably aiming for around 90MB/s transfers. Anything over that would be surprising. Even my WD Green Drives can do sustained writes over 80MB/s so SSD's would likely not give you the blazing increase you're looking for.
 
Try using this. Let us know what your speeds are as stated above. I currently get 768Mbps with a Broadcom NetXtreme II 5708 Gigabit over a Linksys E4200 to an Intel 82567V Gigabit using CAT5e.
 
If you're <500Mbit then you may be looking at some sort of duplex issue as well. Is there something in particular that you're trying to do that these lower network speeds are interfering with or is it just a principle thing? (I can respect it if it's a principle thing lol) I didnt go out and spend over $100 on a NIC because of principles though I did it because I was having stability issues with the realtek nic under heavy load and I wanted better VLAN and LACP support. I guess personally I'm not sure what kind of problem you're having exactly that an older PCI NIC would fix.
 
XTF said:
What's the current 'speed'?
Click to expand...

Using LAN Speed Test I am getting roughly around 400-450 Mbps Write and 450-490 Mbps Read with the Realtek.

I am not just dealing with LAN transfer speeds. I have checked the performance on both computers while accessing data and the two biggest spikes I am seeing is from the hd access and network. So, it seems to be a combination.

So, with overhead and everything, what is the max real world Mbps speeds you can attain with gigabit?
 
110-115, I've seen 115 over a 5GB transfer, tho right now my network isn't in the mood to perform I guess and I'm only seeing like high 90's. I really need to ditch that SG200 and E300 and E2000 and get 2 SG500's stacked >_>
 
computermod14 said:
Try using this. Let us know what your speeds are as stated above. I currently get 768Mbps with a Broadcom NetXtreme II 5708 Gigabit over a Linksys E4200 to an Intel 82567V Gigabit using CAT5e.
Click to expand...

That looks to be the same program I had already used.

Here are the results:
Write Reading
Packet length: 50,000,000-----50,000,000
Time to complete: 1.3890072-----0.8665341
Bytes per second: 35,996,934-----57,701,134
Bit per second: 287,975,472-----461,609,072
Mbps: 287,9754720-----461,609072

I am using Realtek Gigabit cards 8169 series, a Trendnet 8 port Gigabit switch (can't get the model right now...not there), and CAT 6 cables.
 
Last edited:
I have done numerous tests today and I can get no faster than the high 400's.

computermod14,

Wow! Those cards a a little pricey aren't they :)
 
DarkCyber said:
I have done numerous tests today and I can get no faster than the high 400's.

computermod14,

Wow! Those cards a a little pricey aren't they :)
Click to expand...

Well sort of...the Broadcom NetXtreme II 5708 is in my PowerEdge 1900 server that I got from work (was just sitting around) and the other NIC is onboard for my ASUS Rampage III Formula.

I may have missed this in the thread but what router are you running through?
 
I am using a Linksys WRT54G. It is not a gigabit router, thus the reason I run everything through my Trendnet 8 port gigabit switch.
 
Have you tested without the Trendnet in the middle? Just assign static IPs and test the throughput with directly connected NICs on both PCs (should do Auto-MDIX so you shouldn't need a x-over)?

Everyone is quick to blame cheap NICs, but cheap switches can be far worse.
 
Innocence said:
Have you tested without the Trendnet in the middle? Just assign static IPs and test the throughput with directly connected NICs on both PCs (should do Auto-MDIX so you shouldn't need a x-over)?

Everyone is quick to blame cheap NICs, but cheap switches can be far worse.
Click to expand...

I think I did this a long time back when both were on 10/100, but don't think I ever did since I moved everything to gigabit. Thanks for the tip...will try that.
 
Also make sure your drivers are up to date.

I know your using specific video cards, but I remember haivng a problem transfering video from one pc to another, I had even updated the motherboard drivers from manufactuer (ASRock, was using the onboard lan) and still no go. Swapped out switches, cables, nothing solved it. Finaly went to the manufacturer of the onboard lan and installed their driver, solved my problem.

YMMV
 
Innocence said:
Have you tested without the Trendnet in the middle? Just assign static IPs and test the throughput with directly connected NICs on both PCs (should do Auto-MDIX so you shouldn't need a x-over)?

Everyone is quick to blame cheap NICs, but cheap switches can be far worse.
Click to expand...

+1 - always good to eliminate...
 
I could have sworn I had a WRT54 series router that had gig ports but that was like 6 years ago so it's entirely possibly my recollection was flawed as to either model or speed.
 
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but you have a fairly easy way to see if your hard drives are a bottleneck. Download a ramdrive software on both computers (such as imdisk virtual disk driver) and create a ram drive on both machines. And then transfer files from one ramdisk to another. If it's any faster, you have your answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top