Hello all.. Anyone know why 10/100 Mbit network, which is runnig at 100 is only giving a maximum of 2Meg a second this is between a Win98 SE and SuSe 7.1 uploading and downloading 600Meg ISO files ? Should it not be in the region of 10Meg a second for a 100 network... Thanks, Richard McEligott
--- Richard McElligott <128bit@128bit.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Anyone know why 10/100 Mbit network, which is runnig at 100 is only giving a maximum of 2Meg a second this is between a Win98 SE and SuSe 7.1 uploading and downloading 600Meg ISO files ?
Lots of reasons. First, what's the card? Cheap transcievers and poor (i.e. barely-functional) drivers are the bane of network administrators everywhere. If you had a 3Com or an Intel NIC, your odds of moving data faster would be much greater, due to the fact that the hardware and drivers are both (each) the pinnacle of successful networking in the Linux world. Second, are you sure that each card is running in full-duplex mode? Can your hub handle full-duplex? There should be an indicator on the Windows Control Panel somewhere, and you can also use some more advanced features of ifconfig to verify this on the Linux box. dmesg may also have some useful information about the card. Aside, ethernet is pretty chatty, and cheap hubs can't handle much traffic without packet collisions. I'd be willing to bet that your COL light is almost as firmly-lit as the Tx and Rx lights are. Third, you didn't mention the protocol used. HTTP is often faster than FTP, due to the fact that it's a stateless protocol (IIRC), and a simple stream of data can move at a much higher overall throughput than a stateful error-checking protocol like FTP. I don't know anything about SAMBA, but I hear reports that a Linux SAMBA share and a Windows client move data faster than a Windows share to a windows client and *much* faster than a Linux NFS mount to a Linux NFS client. This is from my exceedingly poor memory, so don't quote me. Try using wget over HTTP and FTP to see the difference I'm talking about. I'm not sure, but I think you can use wget over shares, too, using a file:// URI. wget is my favorite tool for snatching files, and works on Win32 as well. ===== -- -=|JP|=- '01 B15 SE/PP | http://www.xanga.com/cowboydren/ | />< '95 SL2 Auto | cowboydren @ yahoo . com | __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
On Saturday 17 November 2001 00:18, Jon Pennington wrote:
Third, you didn't mention the protocol used. HTTP is often faster than FTP, due to the fact that it's a stateless protocol (IIRC), and a simple stream of data can move at a much higher overall throughput than a stateful error-checking protocol like FTP. I don't know
There is no error checking in FTP or HTTP, afaik. That is the job of the underlying TCP. Possibly assisted by an MD5 checksum. And I seriously doubt that HTTP's terminating a session immediately following the completion of a transfer would affect transfer speeds much. I have read somewhere that if you have your ip packet sizes too small, the speed of a 100Mbps ethernet could actually be slower that if you ran 10Mbps on the same physical network. Don't know if it's true, but I read it in SysAdmin, fwiw :)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 10:38:41PM -0000, Richard McElligott wrote:
Hello all.. Anyone know why 10/100 Mbit network, which is runnig at 100 is only giving a maximum of 2Meg a second this is between a Win98 SE and SuSe 7.1 uploading and downloading 600Meg ISO files ? Should it not be in the region of 10Meg a second for a 100 network...
Are youusing Autonegotiation on any devicdes - it doesn't really work all that well - for example, from my Cisco 6500 to any of the Compaq Fast Ethernet cards, it sets itself to 100/HALF instead of FULL.... Hard code the speed and duplex on ALL devices is my First Rule Of Networking. Jon --
participants (4)
-
Anders Johansson
-
Jon Biddell
-
Jon Pennington
-
Richard McElligott