With Vista 64-bit operating system INCREDIBLY the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer does not work correctly. FIX: Go to Microsoft website, download the latest. Of the eight planets in our solar system, Jupiter is indubitably the most swole. It is large, with a radius of 43,440 miles (69,911 kilometers). It also has a bit of. Notes Obviously, you know this site is not the Chromium official website. As a regular user (not an expert), I created it because I did not find a simple way to.
![]() Wiring the house for a Home Network - Part 5 - Gigabit Throughput and Vista. UPDATE: Here's a Bit. Bundled Link of the complete . I was getting about 1. MB/s (that's Mega. Bytes) between two laptops and I got responses like these in the comments that shook my confidence. Below is a list of our most popular Linksys product support software drivers. To download, select the Model Name/Number of your device, then click the Download button.Here's my thoughts after each interesting comment that appeared in the previous post. Given bits/bytes math and some Maximum speed given overhead, etc, is usually 8. Mb/s means about 8. MB/s. But, still, the point is taken. This makes me wonder about the hard drive speed. Certainly fast enough that I’d want to see similar network speeds when copying a single large VM, etc. However, I was copying hundreds of files on a medium fragmented drive, so 1. MB/s isn't unreasonable, IMHO. I'll look at disks in a second. So, let's break this down step by step. Starting Point. Here's where we start, as possibly useful background, I recently built a house and put some amount of effort into the Home Network. The house is all Cat 6 wiring, and the main switch is a Net. Gear 2. 4- port with 2. For this test machines are OFF the corporate network and I’ve physically turned their wireless cards OFF. They are single- homed on a basic flat 1. Nothing fancy. I brought VS2. ISO and copied the 3 gigs of files via Explorer Drag Drop between two Vista 3. RTM machines and got disappointing results. No music was playing. The machines are all dual or quad core machines, one with a 1. RPM hard drive and the others are pretty fast laptops, so they are beefy machines. Why mention this? First we eliminate slow or crappy hardware. In this instance, we know it's not CPU that's causing this. That doesn't mean the network cards aren't poo or something, but we gotta start somewhere. Point is, they are more than fast enough to handle the traffic. The Initial Sub- Optimal Results. So, after the first run, I was getting 1. MB/s between a Vista RTM machine (a Mac) and an SP1 machine. When Vista SP1 talks to Vista RTM it'll talk SMB 1. I mean, 1. 0 MB/s is more than reasonable most often and this is the kind of thing one would only come up against when copying giant files. Still.. now it's a mystery.. Disk Speed. Perhaps Disk Speed is the problem? Commenters on previous posts say Nay, Nay. SATA disks should get 4. MB/s, and that's consistent with my test. The Hanselman- Atwood Ultimate Developer Rig gets 7. Mb/s for sequential writes. Of course this assume non- fragmented disks and that nothing else is moving the disk heads around. The Mac. Book. Pro and Lenovo t. MB/s, so they are not slouches either. All this points away from Disk Speed. Here's disk throughput on a laptop: C: \> disktest. Throughput: 3. 3. MBytes/sec (3. 0. Disk Throughput: 3. MBytes/sec (2. 7 samples, 1 high variance) Min. I/O latency: 2. 50 ms Avg. I/O latency: 4. 80 ms Max. I/O latency: 8. 11 ms. So, disk throughput is fine. Network Cards. In cases like these, it's always a good idea to step back and read the manual. I checked out the release notes for each of my Network Cards and confirmed that they do work on Gigagbit and on Vista and had no issues that smelled like what I am seeing. One useful tip from Ed Briggs. I had been using Cat. I swapped those out for Cat 5e, and ordered some Cat. Switch/Router. Next, I confirmed that my Switch saw these different machines connecting as Gigabit. Here's a screenshot from the Administration Interface of my switch. I'm going between g. The administration interface for the switch also shows the length of the cables. Everything is reasonable from a cabling perspective. Does the Center Hold? I determined that I must be making some terrible mistake. Rather than pulling and proding, I just started testing with traffic. Here’s a NTttcp run. Note the CPU and MBits. You can get NTttcp in the Windows 2. Resource Kit. Total Bytes(MEG) Realtime(s) Average Frame Size Total Throughput(Mbit/s) ================ =========== ================== ======================== 1. Packets Sent Packets Received Total Retransmits Total Errors Avg. CPU % ============ ================ ================= ============ ========== 9. Here's a result with two threads. Kind of weird that it's more, but it is over 8. This implies that the network is generally OK. Total Bytes(MEG) Realtime(s) Average Frame Size Total Throughput(Mbit/s) ================ =========== ================== ======================== 2. Packets Sent Packets Received Total Retransmits Total Errors Avg. CPU % ============ ================ ================= ============ ========== 1. Then I tried. I tried i. Perf, the standard cross- platform network throughput tester. Z: \ntttcp\iperf> iperf - c 1. Client connecting to 1. TCP port 5. 00. 1 TCP window size: 8. KByte (default) - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - . I'll try again with a larger one. Z: \ntttcp\iperf> iperf - c 1. Client connecting to 1. TCP port 5. 00. 1 TCP window size: 6. KByte - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - . Note also that this very good test happened between a Vista RTM machine and a Vista SP1 machine. Local TCP Settings. Next, I checked the window size on my MSFT Corporate t. Laptop with Vista SP1 and was shocked to see the tuning level set to highlyrestricted. Not sure who set that but it wasn’t me (that I remember). I switched it back to “normal” but it didn’t affect any of the tests – I ran them again. Everyone is set to normal. C: \Users\Scott\Desktop\ntttcp> netsh interface tcp show global Querying active state.. TCP Global Parameters - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Receive- Side Scaling State : enabled Chimney Offload State : enabled Receive Window Auto- Tuning Level : highlyrestricted (should be normal) Add- On Congestion Control Provider : none ECN Capability : disabled RFC 1. Timestamps : disabled. The standard setting of . If all your NICs and router/switch support it, you can have frame sizes up to 9. However, only to of my NICs supported it, so I didn't bother. UPDATE: Turns out that Jumbo Frames are obscenely useful. If your network card and router supports them, go for it. More on this at the bottom. Reintroducing The Players. Right now here’s the machines: Quadpower – The Good Lord's own machine. Vista x. 64 RTM. WEI 5. Mac. Book. Pro – Vista x. SP1 Beta from last week. This machine is no slouch. Quadpower x. 64. RTMMac. Book. Pro x. 86. SP1. T6. 0p x. 64. SP1. WHS 2k. 3Quadpower x. RTMX< 1. 0Mb/s< 1. Mb/s< 1. 0Mb/s. Mac. Book. Pro x. SP1. XX3. 3Mb/s. 33. Mb/s. T6. 0p x. 64. SP1. XXX3. 3Mb/s. WHS 2k. 3XXXXSo it appears the problem is on/around/near/adjacent to Quadpower. When stuff goes into or out of it, it's slower. Here’s SP1 to WHS (W2k. Here’s SP1 to RTM: Here’s the Lenovo t. Vista SP1 to a Mac. Book. Pro running Vista SP1. This is starting to sound familiar. I'm mixing my network protocols, specifically SMB2 vs. This makes the protocol less chatty as compared to SMB 1. Chattiness of SMB 1. This includes increasing the number of concurrent open file handles on the server, and the number of shares that a server can share out, among other things. I was assuming this was a Network Hardware or TCP issue, perhaps between Vista RTM and Vista SP1. However, the tests above that showed 9. Mbits/s were actually between and RTM and SP1 machine. Vista Networking works rather fine it seems. It was the older SMB1 protocol being negotiated between my RTM and SP1 machines that was the bottleneck. I was also prodded to look more into Jumbo Frames. Even though the machines will be using SMB1 as their protocol, the 9. With a 1 gig file, twice as fast, so 6. Megabytes a second, even over SMB1. Cool! The NVidia n. Force hardware chipset supports Jumbo Frames, but the drivers do not yet. NVidia is mum on the issue, which is lame. This the the chipset in my primary machine, the one I'd really like to support Jumbo. In the Lenovo T6. Intel Pro/1. 00. 0 PL with an Intel 8. L chipset which apparently doesn't support Jumbo Frames when Active State Power Management (ASPM) is disabled, and since it's in a laptop, it's disabled. No Jumbo Frames on a Lenovo t. Intel Network Adapter Driver for Vista 6. Jumbo frames is not supported in 8. E/V & is supported with the workaround above in 8. L. As far as I'm concerned, problem solved, I'm upgraded to Vista SP1 everywhere and am enjoying Disk Speed on the wire. Now I've gotten speeds up to 3. MB/s between machines when copying large files depending on the disk of the machines involved, etc, without Jumbo Frames, and up to 6. MB/s with Jumbo. I'll be sure to only get network cards that support Jumbo Frames in the future. I'm happy I went gigabit and I'm happy I went Vista SP1 and I'm happy I went Cat. Whew. I was worried I'd have to tear my walls open.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2018
Categories |