 |
|
|
|
Next: Web Pages won't load
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 208
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:54 am
Post subject: efficiency of Ethernet?
Archived from groups: comp>sys>ibm>pc>hardware>networking (more info?)
|
|
|
Well, I got a laptop with both a Wi-Fi and an Ethernet port on it.
Usually I'm using Wi-Fi unless I need to do something really intensive
between two computers within my home network, such as printing or file
transfer when I switchover to Ethernet. Now although 100BT Ethernet is
loads faster than WiFi, it just doesn't seem fast enough. It takes me
almost exactly 10 minutes to transfer a CD's worth of data (700MB)
between two nodes in the network, I should expect that to be done
within 1 minute at 100% efficiency. But I'm seeing only about 12.5%
efficiency out of the Ethernet. I had previously assumed that
efficiency might be around 60-70%, but I was surprised to only see this
level of efficiency.
I've tried this experiment both through the switch of a broadband
router, as well as a direct computer-to-computer X-over Ethernet cable.
It was the same in both cases.
Yousuf Khan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 582
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:07 pm
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 20 Jan 2005 11:54:53 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, I got a laptop with both a Wi-Fi and an Ethernet port on it.
>Usually I'm using Wi-Fi unless I need to do something really intensive
>between two computers within my home network, such as printing or file
>transfer when I switchover to Ethernet. Now although 100BT Ethernet is
>loads faster than WiFi, it just doesn't seem fast enough. It takes me
>almost exactly 10 minutes to transfer a CD's worth of data (700MB)
>between two nodes in the network, I should expect that to be done
>within 1 minute at 100% efficiency. But I'm seeing only about 12.5%
>efficiency out of the Ethernet. I had previously assumed that
>efficiency might be around 60-70%, but I was surprised to only see this
>level of efficiency.
>
>I've tried this experiment both through the switch of a broadband
>router, as well as a direct computer-to-computer X-over Ethernet cable.
>It was the same in both cases.
>
> Yousuf Khan
1. All network host adapters are not created equal.
2. Same thing goes for drivers.
3. And you still need enough horsepower to drive 'em fast...
/daytripper<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 17, 2003
Posts: 72
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
YKhan wrote:
> Well, I got a laptop with both a Wi-Fi and an Ethernet port on it.
> Usually I'm using Wi-Fi unless I need to do something really intensive
> between two computers within my home network, such as printing or file
> transfer when I switchover to Ethernet. Now although 100BT Ethernet is
> loads faster than WiFi, it just doesn't seem fast enough. It takes me
> almost exactly 10 minutes to transfer a CD's worth of data (700MB)
> between two nodes in the network, I should expect that to be done
> within 1 minute at 100% efficiency. But I'm seeing only about 12.5%
> efficiency out of the Ethernet. I had previously assumed that
> efficiency might be around 60-70%, but I was surprised to only see this
> level of efficiency.
>
> I've tried this experiment both through the switch of a broadband
> router, as well as a direct computer-to-computer X-over Ethernet cable.
> It was the same in both cases.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
The efficiency of Ethernet is great as long as collisions are rare (as they
will be on a Xover cable with both NICs in FDX mode). But you are likely
not measuring the performance of Ethernet, but rather of a long HD-HD chain
involving great steaming wads of M$ (I assume) code; and, the Ethernet and
its NICs are probably not the bottlenecks.
For starters, check that your NICs are in FDX 100 Mb/s mode, with auto-
negotiation turned off.
--
Cheers, Bob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 283
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:19 pm
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
daytripper wrote:
> 1. All network host adapters are not created equal.
> 2. Same thing goes for drivers.
> 3. And you still need enough horsepower to drive 'em fast...
Well, how fast have you seen it go?
Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 283
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:21 pm
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Bob Willard wrote:
> For starters, check that your NICs are in FDX 100 Mb/s mode, with auto-
> negotiation turned off.
We've tried that too, i.e. turning auto-neg off and hard-coding the
connection scheme. It's still the same.
Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 10, 2003
Posts: 485
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:35 pm
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
> daytripper wrote:
>
>> 1. All network host adapters are not created equal.
>> 2. Same thing goes for drivers.
>> 3. And you still need enough horsepower to drive 'em fast...
>
>
> Well, how fast have you seen it go?
>
> Yousuf Khan
Moments ago I moved 1073739776 bytes via FTP in 140 seconds, for
a rate of 7.7 MB/sec (as reported by FTP). That was nothing special --
and it's probably more an indication of the speed of the disks and CPUs
involved than it is of any shortcoming of Ethernet. (FWIW, the two
machines involved have 333 MHz clocks.)
Still, at 8 bits/byte (ignoring overhead), that works out to an
efficiency of about 61.6%.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che....DeleteThis@prodigy.net.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 10, 2003
Posts: 485
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:35 pm
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CJT wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> daytripper wrote:
>>
>>> 1. All network host adapters are not created equal.
>>> 2. Same thing goes for drivers.
>>> 3. And you still need enough horsepower to drive 'em fast...
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, how fast have you seen it go?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
> Moments ago I moved 1073739776 bytes via FTP in 140 seconds, for
> a rate of 7.7 MB/sec (as reported by FTP). That was nothing special --
> and it's probably more an indication of the speed of the disks and CPUs
> involved than it is of any shortcoming of Ethernet. (FWIW, the two
> machines involved have 333 MHz clocks.)
>
> Still, at 8 bits/byte (ignoring overhead), that works out to an
> efficiency of about 61.6%.
>
BTW, I should probably also note that the receiving machine was fairly
heavily loaded doing another task at the time.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che....DeleteThis@prodigy.net.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 283
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: efficiency of Ethernet? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CJT wrote:
> Moments ago I moved 1073739776 bytes via FTP in 140 seconds, for
> a rate of 7.7 MB/sec (as reported by FTP). That was nothing special --
> and it's probably more an indication of the speed of the disks and CPUs
> involved than it is of any shortcoming of Ethernet. (FWIW, the two
> machines involved have 333 MHz clocks.)
>
> Still, at 8 bits/byte (ignoring overhead), that works out to an
> efficiency of about 61.6%.
60% is what I used to see on my Unix servers at work. That's why I came
to expect and assume an efficiency of 60-70% as standard on 100BT. Come
to think of it, I used to measure their efficiency with FTP transfers
too, but I'm measuring these machines using Windows' file and printer
sharing. Let me try a couple of tests with FTP and see what happens
between these machines.
Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: efficiency of Ethernet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Ethernet card - I have a 7025 F40 RS 6000 and am chasing an IBM part number "FC2968 10/100 Ethernet Adapter" to put into it. Anyone have one lying around? Queensland Australia
Computer -> Ethernet -> USB - Hi, Does it exist a converters with ethernet and USB connectors to enable me to connect a usb webcamera at the end of an ethernet cable? I know I can buy ethernet web cameras, but they are expensive and often have poor image quality... Thanks for inf...
Dual Port ethernet NIC Available? - I have two NICs in my PC. One is connected to my DSL modem. The other is connected, via a crossover ethernet cable, to a PC in another room of my home. I would like to free up a slot in my PC by installing a NIC with dual ports. Problem is, I don't..
gigabit ethernet w/ 32bit PCI - weird question: what would be the max transfer rate (roughly) of a 64bit PCI-X gbe card, that was installed on an older UDMA33 motherboard (with pentiumIII) with 32bit PCI slots and ATA100 hard drive...? how would this compare to more modern UDMA100....
Is there such a thing as a dua; ethernet/wireless adapter? - Currently, I have the following: 1, Win 2000 system networked to a Win 95 system using a crossover cable. 2. I connect to internet using dial-up modem 3. Win 2000 system uses a 3COM PCI 10/100 NIC: 3C905B-TX. This has only 1 port. 4. Win 95 system uses ... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
