richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 I just setup a new file server (windows 2000 server) for hosting and to backup files on my network. When I'm transferring something from my wired computer to the server I consistently get speeds of 8.8mbps. I've got a 100Mbps network so theoretically I should be able to transfer at about 12. Is 8.8 the best I'm going to get, or can I tweak it and squeeze a little more out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 I just setup a new file server (windows 2000 server) for hosting and to backup files on my network. When I'm transferring something from my wired computer to the server I consistently get speeds of 8.8Mbps. I've got a 100Mbps network so theoretically I should be able to transfer at about 12. Is 8.8 the best I'm going to get, or can I tweak it and squeeze a little more out? I believe you have to increase the buffer size, but not sure exactly which one.....Someone will know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Where would I find the buffer size? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Never mind I searched lan buffer size I found this https://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=1607. I follow that guide and see if I can get some better results. Would I do this just on the server or all the computers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Where would I find the buffer size? I'm not 100% on this one, but it wont hurt to just try it... On the cable nut settings, look for MaxHashTableSize, and try setting that to 65535(max size), or try 32768. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Never mind I searched lan buffer size I found this https://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=1607. I follow that guide and see if I can get some better results. Would I do this just on the server or all the computers? I'm not sure i'm correct, but I think that value is the same as the MaxHashTableSize...But I could be totally wrong..I need someone to confirm or deny this...Vanburen is this true? I would think think the machine sending the data, would need the larger buffer..But again, I'm not sure.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Hmm I'm still stuck at 8.8, maybe thats the best I can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Hmm I'm still stuck at 8.8, maybe thats the best I can get. There may be another buffer setting...Someone will know.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 I change the optimize setting for my lan from cpu to thourouput and that lets me hit 9-9.1 so I'm getting somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 I change the optimize setting for my lan from cpu to thourouput and that lets me hit 9-9.1 so I'm getting somewhere. But are we ever really satisfied lol...We always want MORE!!! (i blue screened myself bad last night in an overclocking attempt ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Well technically I'm not getting 90% of my "advertised speed". I can hit up to 9.1 but 90% would be 10.98ish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted December 23, 2005 CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 try loading the 100Mbps full duplex cablenut file, that file gave me 12.5 MB/s over internet so it should work even better over LAN at that speed, things like softwarefirewalls, NIC drivers can impact your speed alot VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Good idea I'll try that and post results. Hmm the 100 full duplex brought me back down to 8.8-9.0, so no real change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 23, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 23, 2005 Thats still pretty fast, because I just transfered a 2 gig file in 4 minutes which is sweet, I can only imagine having an actual internet connection that fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 here is mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 i can get more to my faster comp cause this 1 maxes out the cpu goin that fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Maybe my servers cpu is too slow, so I guess its not worth investing in a gigbit network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltageman Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Have you looked to see if your network adapter has buffer settings... If you go to the network icon, right click/properties/configure/advanced, see if you have any settings for 'Number of Receive Buffers', and 'Number of Transmit Buffers'... Mine is set at 50 by default, I have it set at 60/70 (receive/transmit)...Bascially just screwing around trying to see what works...I'm gonna crank it way up now and see what happens.. . See if your nic card has those settings...And if so..Tweak Away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Did you check to make sure that your NIC is set to 100Mbps versus 10? I would also set it to full duplex, but you might try half duplex to see which works better for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Yea, Ive got an old motherboard with integrated lan and none of those buffer options are present, and 100 works better versus 10. But hey thats why I put it in a server instead of letting it collect dust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Makes sense to me. The router would only provide the Internet signal to the switch, and the wireless access, but for the wired network through the switch speeds should be up to 1G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 Ok so if the server was on a 1000 switch, it could serve 2 100Mbps wired clients and one 54g wireless simultaneously? Thats only 254 and since it would be on gigabit it could handle that right? The limiting thing now becomes the hardrive and cpu not the connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 here is gigabit ethernet to the same comp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted December 24, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 If I get a gigabit switch it will be so my server can accommodate multiple users at their full bandwidth at the same time. If I had just 100 on the server 2 users would have to split that, not so if the server had 1000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted December 24, 2005 CID Share Posted December 24, 2005 it might handle it better with less utilization but if something else is the bottleneck then it might do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.