|
|
What is best: a twisted pair extension from the AB connections on the back of a filtered faceplate to a modem/router or a long ethernet cable from the router (positioned near and connected to the master socket via the front adsl socket) to a computer - maybe talking about 30 feet or so?
BTW physical access to the router would not be an important issue.
Edited by 4M2 (Fri 30-Sep-11 12:42:18)
|
|
|
|
When BT / OR did my install, they used an Ethernet cable from Master Socket to the Modem / Router. About 10 Metres worth.
There was an existing twisted-pair connection along the same path, but they did not want to use it.
Mayhap they know best ?
|
|
|
|
nothing in it really,
presuming its a router with wireless and 4 port switch:
site the router where its other connections are best used,
particularly
a) site it well for wireless access
b) if computer and printer, both need network wires, put the router near them
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
G3UZF,
BT/OR used an approx 10 metre ethernet cable (RJ45) from the master socket, via the adsl front connection on a filter faceplate, to the modem/router?
Might cause confusion when reconnecting cables to the router in the future though if that was the case...
Edited by 4M2 (Fri 30-Sep-11 15:13:02)
|
|
|
|
ggremlin,
You say "nothing in it really" - but would an approx 30 foot twisted pair perhaps be more susceptible to noise than an ethernet cable of a similar length or does the signal degrade (if that is the correct term) over longish lengths of ethernet cabling more so than over a twisted pair?
|
|
|
The router next to master socket, and ethernet running to am ethernet switch in a more convinent location is best solution.
CAT5e carrying an Ethernet signal will happily manage 100 Mbps over a 100 m run.
30 feet of twisted pair cable is unlikely to be an issue for an ADSL signal, but you never know until you try it in the RF environment in your home.
Only way to know is test each setup in your home.
Myself router at master, then Ethernet infrastructure cable to take the now IP network around the property
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Andrew,
Sounds like on balance ethernet would be a better bet than twisted pair especially as physical access to the router is not a necessity.
Many thanks for the clarification,
4M2.
|
|
|
I agree with Mr S - put the router at the earliest point you can which in your case is at the master. It reduces the possible problems from RFI generated by a plethora of electrical and electronic devices around the house.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
MHC,
Thanks for confirming Andrew's opinion 
What would be the preferable form of cabling (ethernet can go directly to the pc from the router - no real need for an adsl wall socket unless advisable): ready made RJ45 to RJ45 or make one up from a length of cable and a couple of plugs? Any idea about suitable makes for either/or?
4M2.
|
|
|
|
+1 for the MR S setup. I have this myself.
|
|
|
|
BT/OR used an approx 10 metre ethernet cable (RJ45) from the master socket, via the adsl front connection on a filter faceplate, to the modem/router?Might cause confusion when reconnecting cables to the router in the future though if that was the case...
BT/OR fitted a new Master Socket with 'phone and ADSL sockets. Ran a plugged cable from the ADSL socket to a new extension socket (hard-wired). Modem plugged into that and ethernet from Modem to Router.
Hope that clarifies.
|
|
|
making up the cable is simpler if you have to pass through holes in the wall or similar, plugs are quite a bit bigger than the cable itself.
Phil
MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.
MaxDSL diagnostics
Are your kids pirates ? Limewire, Bearshare, Kazaa, BitTorrent, eMule are all tools of the trade. |
|
|
G3UZF,
Seems odd that they didn't run a twisted pair from the AB connections on the back of a filtered faceplate (if available) to the new extension socket - hard wired at both ends.
Alternatively, an approx 30 foot twisted pair hard wired on the back of a filtered faceplate and plugged, at the other end, directly into a modem/router (RJ11?) would have only one plug and perhaps be more efficient, though less neat?
As you questioned: " BT/OR.....they know best?"
Thanks for the clarification
4M2.
Edited by 4M2 (Sun 02-Oct-11 12:24:13)
|
|
|
|
yarwell,
Yes there would be a need to thread the ethernet cable to an upstairs room through a ceiling and floor boards but not through any walls - it would run alongside an existing voice extension hard wired to the back of a filtered faceplate with its own voice only extension socket.
Will have to check out the costs of 100% Copper CAT5e...
Andrew said that ethernet is good for up to 100 metres so that would give much more flexibility regarding positioning of equipment upstairs and the possible need to drill through any upstairs walls at a later stage.
4M2.
|
|
|
Run the cable amd if possible leave some spare in the ceiling or floor. At each end use a wall mount pattress box with a single RJ45 socket. A lot easier than putting RJ45 plugs on the end (which is not normal or easy on infrastructure cable), simple to move later and cheaper tooling. Then use patch leads from modem to socket and second socket to router.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
MHC,
That certainly sounds like the professional way of doing it
It my case it would initially be router to socket and second socket to computer - I just thought it might be better to keep the connections to a minimum, i.e. RJ45 at the router, length of cable with plenty to spare and RJ45 to the computer.
Apparently cutting the inner strands of cable, once singled out, at an angle of 45 degrees across the splay makes it much easier to fit a RJ45 plug - haven't done it but it looks straight forward enough...
|
|
|
Don't worry about keeping connections to a minimum ... mine goes: Patch lead from Router to Switch, Patch lead from Switch to Patch Panel, Infrastructure Cable (up to 25 metres) from Patch panel to Socket, Patch Cable from Socket to PC?Device and in a coupe of cases a back to back connector for devices too far from the socket.
Or run 2 cables and fit 2 sockets at the router end, with the other ends going to either the same place or different end points.
Once you have done a few RJ45s are reasonably easy, but a decent tool is not cheap (mine was over £120 about 5 years back) and the cable you will be using is not suited for terminating in plugs - the connector blade goes though and can sometimes miss the conductor. The cable is fine for use on IDCs though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
MHC,
I really appreciate your advice: two sockets and ethernet cable connected to the IDCs definitely looks like the best solution, plus initially a couple of patch cables connecting the router (located near to the master) to the first socket and from the second socket upstairs to the computer. This will allow further devices to be added at a later stage and with plenty of spare cable that second socket upstairs could be moved to a different location if required.
Nice one
4M2.
|
|
|
MHC,
Another hypothetical plan, though probably not as good as using Infrastructure Cable, might be based on this http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/nte5.htm - I do have a "spare" NTE5 and filtered face plate. What would be the best type of cable to use for the connections 2 & 5 to A & B - presumably twisted pair rather than normal telephone extension cable - and over what length before RF noise could become a factor?
This would mean that unfiltered voice and adsl would be combined into a single cable from the BT master line box to the NTE5 line box, rather than having two cables: i.e. one for ethernet and another filtered for voice. The NTE5 line box, with filtered faceplate, could perhaps be positioned upstairs close to a mains socket for powering the router.
However would the existing downstairs BT master line box with filtered faceplate still be good for connecting the downstairs phone?
|
|
|
Telephone wire is twisted pair and would work. Yes you could use the master as a filtered connection for a phone.
It might be perfect but the RF environment around your house is a total unknown ... That is why the suggestion is to convert from ADSL to Ethernet as soon as possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
MHC,
Thanks - ethernet it is then
But one thing that has crossed my mind is the connection at the downstairs router end: you are using: "Patch lead from Router to Switch, Patch lead from Switch to Patch Panel, Infrastructure Cable" I was considering simply using a patch lead from router to wall socket then Infrastructure Cable - would the connections have to be based on a crossover between the downstairs and upstairs wall sockets? Or am I totally missing something?
|
|
|
Don't worry about crossovers ... use standard leads and wiring.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
As per MHC yes most recent kit either lists itself as "autosensing" and particularly "auto MDI/MDIX".
In general this is taken to mean it will negotiate speed and duplex as well as do an auto-crossover as required.
There are rare combinations where the automatic algorithms lead to a mismatch but this is usually a sign something else is wrong, and can equally happen if one end has been forced to an unsuitable manual setting.
The smart / managed switches we have let you choose what capabilities/modes to advertise in auto-negotiation, without forcing a specific mode.
But as above, you don't need to worry about this unless you know your setup requires something unusual.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
|
|
|
|
MHC and prizx,
Guess I was thinking in terms of a lead, such as a something than has female sockets at each end where the wires are connected differently at each female socket to maintain polarity...
But with "autosensing" and "auto MDI/MDIX" that idea is, if I understand you correctly, irrelevant (I'll have to read up about that stuff - I'm still stuck in the world of SCART plugs and sockets LOL!)
|
|
|
Yes the gist of it is if buying or making up your own cable it can be a normal aka straight-through cable unless you have some things old enough on both ends of a given run, that neither end does the auto stuff.
This illustrates the 2 wiring conventions for ethernet cabling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568#Wiring
When terminating your own cables, you can pick to follow T568A or T568B; it doesn't really matter which as long as you are consistent.
Something that doesn't work is if a connector is wired completely upside down, in the sense that pins 1-8 at one end would connect to pins 8-1 respectively. I believe some 4 or 6 pin telephone systems could cause confusion if the convention for socket pin numbering was reversed compared with plug pin numbering, or if a device expected to be DC powered by the analogue line with a particular pin polarity.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
Edited by prlzx (Wed 05-Oct-11 11:03:32)
|
|
|
prizx,
Many thanks for the info and the link.
I've got some cat5e ordered and a rj45 socket - the socket I'll be using upstairs at the computer end as an "output", however I don't feel comfortable about using a rj45 socket downstairs at the router end, as an "input", together with a patch cable. For me a rj45 plug on the end of the cat5e cable connected directly into the router would be a more "logical" setup. That way it "feels" and appears as an extension...any comments about this and possible alternatives, or is having two rj45 sockets linked by cat5e a normal and recognised setup?
Edited by 4M2 (Wed 05-Oct-11 12:36:31)
|
|
|
For me a rj45 plug on the end of the cat5e cable connected directly into the router would be a more "logical" setup. That way it "feels" and appears as an extension...any comments about this and possible alternatives, or is having two rj45 sockets linked by cat5e a normal and recognised setup?
Yes, when offices are wired for structured cabling, it is sockets at both ends (patch panel in the comms room and sockets mounted in walls or under floor flaps. And other posters have commented on punch-down connections being easier than crimping (which needs more practice).
Sockets at both ends will also be tidier if you need to unplug or move the things later (and cable runs would usually include some spare slack which allows the end connections to be repaired if damaged).
I do understand the "plug end into source socket" way of thinking; in mains wiring there are clear safety reasons why the "supply" end is a socket and the device has the plug!
Similarly analogue telephone lines have a moderate DC voltage and one expects to be plugging something into a phone socket.
But ultimately whichever approach you are more comfortable with, as long as it works.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
Edited by prlzx (Wed 05-Oct-11 12:46:51)
|
|
|
prizx,
Appreciate the clarification
Right! Another, post free, rj45 socket is being ordered as I speak...it would certainly be easier to fit, with a healthy connection, than a rj45 plug.
Just wonder what any future property owners/surveyors might think about the two rj45 sockets, although the cable will be visible through most of it's length.
|
|
|
|
prizx,
Just out of interest: would the rj45 wiring conventions for ethernet cabling, that you linked to, allow for a rj11 to rj45 (or rj11) cable to be used for connecting the downstairs master adsl rj11 filtered socket to the new rj45 downstairs socket should the router be used upstairs at some future time - in other words could the rj45 socket > ethernet > rj45 socket setup also be used as an analogue twisted pair?
|
|
|
Yes good quality telephone cabling and ethernet cabling are both twisted pair and ethernet (certainly CAT5 or above) exceeds the standards that analogue voice requires.
Whereas some telephone extension cables are flat (with no twisting) which are more prone to interference on longer cable lengths.
What is sold as RJ11 cable may have 2, 4 or 6 wires but a single phone line only needs one pair, so the "RJ45" plug would need to connect any one of the 4 pairs (and not split it across different pairs).
An "RJ11 to RJ45" adapter or cable would preferably use the centre pair (pins 4+5). Some adapters linked a second pair for PBX signalling.
100Mbps ethernet only needs pins 1+2 and 3+6 (gigabit uses all 4 pairs) so with care 1 or 2 analogue pairs could be run over the same cable at the same time but not really advisable!
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
Edited by prlzx (Wed 05-Oct-11 14:25:14)
|
|
|
prizx,
Appreciate the clarification
Right! Another, post free, rj45 socket is being ordered as I speak...it would certainly be easier to fit, with a healthy connection, than a rj45 plug.
Just wonder what any future property owners/surveyors might think about the two rj45 sockets, although the cable will be visible through most of it's length.
Good ! Believe me, that is the easiest and best way for you to do it.
What will someone think? Probably that you are reasonably careful and have thought out what you wanted to do rather than implement a bodged cowboy job.!
I have RJ45 sockets in Lounge, Studies/Offices, some Bedrooms (wall and floor), Dressing Room, Comms Room, Cloakroom, Kitchen, Store/Utility, Hall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
|
prizx,
I've just called in at my local friendly computer shop and they have agreed to crimp a couple of rj45 plugs on the 20 metre cat5e cable that I've ordered from another discount supplier - if it's suitable. We will be able to test the connections in the shop and then when I get back on site I'll chop off one the rj45 plugs and thread the cable through the ceiling to the rj45 socket. If not I'll go with plan A and use two rj45 sockets.
In either case I will connect the wires according to the standard of my patch leads and allow for plenty of spare cable at both ends. A rj11 male to rj45 female adaptor would be all that's needed (?) if I used a rj45 plug on the downstairs router end of the extension and wanted to convert to an analogue extension from the filtered master adsl socket to the rj45 socket upstairs, and hence the router repositioned upstairs should that ever be needed.
Somehow I just like the idea of a rj45 plug at the downstairs router end of the extension for this setup...
|
|
|
MHC,
Looks like I may be making progress with this project - 17Mbps and faster 1920x1080 video is not good over the current 'G' WLAN - 8Mbps VBR 1920x1080 just about makes it though without buffering.
Thanks for your continued support and advice.
4M2.
Edited by 4M2 (Wed 05-Oct-11 17:21:46)
|
|
|
prizx and MHC,
Initial tests are very good with the ethernet setup: 1920x1080 80Mbps AVI (CineForm v6 codec) video files play smoothly over the LAN (XP 32bit, TG585 v7 - 7.4.4.7 and Win7 32bit) without buffering, anything with a higher bit rate struggles though.
Just got to finish off and fix the cat5e properly in place.
Thanks for the help and advice, much appreciated
PS. File transfer speed from Win7 to XP is between 11.5MB/s and 12MB/s over the network.
4M2.
Edited by 4M2 (Thu 06-Oct-11 16:52:19)
|
|
|
Hi 4M2,
Sounds like you have things performing much as expected for 100M ethernet.
Just wondered, where you mention local transfers between 2 computers, do both have gigabit ports (a small gigabit switch could significantly speed LAN things up if that is to be a regular thing).
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
|
|
|
prizx,
Yes its seems to working really well...
I keep the Win7 machine clean for video editing (Sony Vegas NLE ) and the XP machine for general use which does include work on HD video files with all manner of apps such as VirtualDub, AviSynth, Avidemux etc. etc. and use a whole variety of codecs. Some of those HD files have a bit rate in excess of 150Mbps and it would be good, though not essential, to play them over then LAN - transferring those files over the LAN between rooms and computers, which will be fairly regular, is now pretty darn quick!
Sorry, I don't know much about gigabit ports and "a small gigabit switch" - I'll check them out, but please in the meantime point me in the right direction...
Edit: doesn't look like it's possible - XP machine has a Intel(R) 82562V-2 10/100 Network Connection and I don't really have a spare PCI or PCIe slot (low profile case) for a gigabit card.
Edit 2: found a spare PCI slot on the XP machine - removed the sound card that I don't use much and went back to onboard audio. Win7 machine is good for gigabit, XP PCI gigabit card has been ordered, so now to check out the gigabit switch...
Edited by 4M2 (Fri 07-Oct-11 03:10:48)
|
|
|
|
prizx,
Ethernet set up is great, but just to return to a few issues about an analogue extension set up should it ever be needed and what is best, assuming a distance of 30 to 60 feet from master to router:
1) A single cat5e carrying filtered voice on one twisted pair connected to the back of a filtered face plate, on the BT master, and another carrying adsl from the AB connections on the back of the same filtered faceplate, both terminating at an adsl and voice socket (a second phone could be plugged into the front of the filtered faceplate on the BT master socket.)
or
2) The cat5e carrying adsl and unfiltered voice from the back of an unfiltered faceplate on the BT master along one twisted pair terminating at another master socket with filtered faceplate and hence adsl and filtered voice front sockets (a second phone would presumably require a dongle filter connected to the front of the unfiltered faceplate on the BT master.)
In other words would adsl on one pair and filtered voice on another pair be less susceptible to noise than adsl and unfiltered voice on a single pair if using cat5e?
|
|
|
I'm not clued up on the use of the filtered faceplates so I hope others will jump in, but my hunch is to filter as soon as possible at the master socket, if effect of this is to prevent any voice extensions from adding interference / noise to the line.
This sounds like (1) unless I have misread it.
On the gigabit switch, typically you can find a range of sizes - 5/8/10/16 ports - (and more for the rack-mounted kind).
The rule of thumb would be to think of all the things you have with ethernet and still have a few ports to spare.
However the thing to try first (once the gigabit NIC is fitted) would be to link the two computers together directly - not via the router - and check they link up at the expected speed, and try a few transfers.
Edit: Without the router to give out IPs it is acceptable to let them auto assign 169.254.x.y addresses as you can still network locally without having to manually set IPs. Don't worry about XPs "Limited or no connectivity" warning, it's a bit misleading as it just means no gateway found (router to the internet in this case).
If that works you can think about adding a switch, placed such that the router, computer and the downstairs end of the CAT5 run each connect to it, then the other computer at the other socket. The computers will still show a 1G link for LAN transfers while the connection to the router will be 100M without slowing down the 1G LAN.
Edit: This is assuming you were able to test all 8 pins were connected and in the right pairs (if the link falls back to 100M between floors it suggests a problem on any/all of pins 4/5/7/8)
In your setup there will be nothing connected to the 100M NIC in the XP computer, though having two NICs gives it the future option of going into "retirement" as a dedicated firewall.
I'll have a look around tomorrow on switches but for at 5 or 8-port for starters it does not need to be expensive.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
Edited by prlzx (Sat 08-Oct-11 01:05:21)
|
|
|
|
Cheers prizx,
Thanks for that really precise and detailed description of how to setup the network with a gigabit switch - it will probably be a few days before the gigabit PCI card, for the XP machine, arrives and even then I hope a low profile bracket will be included because it's not generally mentioned in the product's description by different retailers.
I think the XP machine and myself are both heading gracefully into retirement...
|
|
|
I'm not clued up on the use of the filtered faceplates so I hope others will jump in, but my hunch is to filter as soon as possible at the master socket, if effect of this is to prevent any voice extensions from adding interference / noise to the line.
This sounds like (1) unless I have misread it. No, you have not misread it. Option (1) is the only sensible way to proceed, if that form of set-up is desired. As for the filtered faceplate at the NTE5/A I would recommend the passive device, manufactured by Pressac for OR and available, without the OR logo, from the usual suppliers [1][2][3].
[1] http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134
[2] http://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/BTNTE5ADSLfaceplate6w...
[3] https://www.solwise-secure.co.uk/trolley.php?NewStoc...
-----------------------------------------------------
100% Linux and, previously, Unix.
|
|
|
burakkucat,
Yep, it's Pressac filtered faceplates that I use - usually from Amazon, the last one cost about 15 quid post free.
I've never tested the AB adsl connections off the back of the faceplate, although the filtered voice extension off the back of the plate is fine (however I don't know if the bell wire works - never connected it.)
Do sometimes get a "tinkle" on the phone connected to the front of the faceplate which is probably (?) caused by the cheap DECT phone on the end of the filtered voice extension.
Edit: seems like the best analogue extension setup for adsl and voice, if using a single cat5e cable, would be based on this http://www.clarity.it/acatalog/adsl_extensions.html using "DUAL: 1 x RJ45(ADSL/Data) & 1 x BT socket" and hardwiring to the back of a Pressac faceplate at the BT master (this would also allow a phone to be connected to the front of the filtered faceplate at the BT master without the need for a dongle filter/splitter.)
Edited by 4M2 (Sat 08-Oct-11 12:44:05)
|
|
|
|
prizx,
I'm giving a TP-LINK TL-SD1005D version 4.0 five port gigabit switch a try. Haven't got the gigabit PCI card for the XP machine yet but with the switch connected up to the LAN the XP and Win7 machines are having no problems communicating, although, of course, limited to 100Mbps. Just hope the PCI gigabit card doesn't muck things up after I've fitted it to the XP machine...will use a direct connection to the router, without the switch on the LAN, to test it initially.
4M2.
|
|
|
4M2, if it's the SG1005D that looks suitable and uncomplicated at least on paper,
Also, if you check the link speed reported on the network adapter status, the Win 7 box should already be showing 1G (or 1000M) - even though the remaining devices on the switch are still 100M.
On the XP box a reminder to unplug the cable from the 100M adapter when you connect up the new gigabit card so the network does not get confused.
In the old days a particular port on the switch would be designated the "uplink" port which would go to the next switch or router, the rest of the ports would be for devices. These days it is more common with switches like yours that all ports can take on either role.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
|
|
|
I would also consider something based on the use of this, for example, at the extension location.
I have the classic faceplate filter at the NTE5/A and the above at the extension location.
-----------------------------------------------------
100% Linux and, previously, Unix.
|
|
|
|
Yes, from your link that's the same one.
Didn't check the link speed on the Win7 machine when I had the switch connected earlier, just played a 80Mbps video which was fine and a 120Mbps video stuttered a bit. Will check the status next time I connect the switch to the LAN though.
I'll disable the 100M LAN adaptor from the XP bios also before I boot with the new card installed...
|
|
|
burakkucat,
Yes, that's the same as I was talking about - without a cat5e cable, and the faceplate looks just like the pressacs https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pressac-NTE5-compatible-fil... that I use
|
|
|
I'll disable the 100M LAN adaptor from the XP bios also before I boot with the new card installed...
That'll work too, but by default it's generally enough to unplug the cable; there may be a future use for the 100M adapter, just that they are not both connected to the same network at the same time.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
|
|
|
prizx,
Gigabit is all setup on the LAN, fitted the gigabit PCI card to the XP machine today (status of the adapters on both the XP and Win7 machine show a speed of 1Gbs.) However there is not a dramatic improvement in speed: 150Mbps 1920x1080 25p CineForm v6 AVI video files are playable, without any stutter, over the LAN and the transfer speed of a 200MB file from the Win7 machine to the XP machine was about 15MB/s.
Those speeds are quite adequate for my needs though
4M2
Edit: did another transfer using the same 200MB file from Win7 to XP and got 30MB/s - probably Kaspersky IS wasn't quite "in gear" for the first test.
Edited by 4M2 (Wed 12-Oct-11 19:41:38)
|
|
|
Sounds ok-ish in as far as it exceeds 100Mbps,
Once you go to gigabit ethernet, the next limitations in throughput can be
- the slower of the two hard disks (when copying files) or the source drive (when playing back from a remote file)
- I/O (if the OS or drivers cannot offload processing of network packets from the CPU to this model of network card).
Even so I would have expected transfers of between 50MB/s and 100MB/s, assuming the files are copied to/from an internal hard disk rather than a USB external drive.
With Task Manager open on the slower machine (I'll presume the XP one) you may be able to see if CPU usage is high during just file copying (with nothing much else going on).
And if you know make and model of the network card there may be settings to adjust in its Device Manager properties (such as TCP offload).
If the other machine wasn't XP I might have suggested playing with Jumbo Frames (the switch supports it), but I'd be concerned about affecting its communication with the internet.
Edit: aha software anti-virus and firewalls - I'd not though of that.
If you want to do temporary tests you can create one folder on each machine that is excluded from real-time scanning and transfer the files between these two folders.
Or you could try making an exception from real-time scanning for the media file type you are using (e.g. avi).
If the anti-virus services are listed in Task Manager's processes you may see spikes in those processes when it is checking a large file.
Edit 2: when you copy the same file repeatedly if your machines have enough RAM the file at the source is cached in RAM which means it's less about hard disk read speed.
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t Max ADSL
Edited by prlzx (Wed 12-Oct-11 20:04:24)
|
|
|
|
What I have noticed with the new XP gigabit card is this:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\me>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.241.131:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 162ms, Average = 62ms
C:\Documents and Settings\me>
I don't know whether it is significant or not but with the old onboard card the first packet would have a round trip time of ~30ms. With this new card the first round trip can vary between ~40ms and, as in the above example, up to 162ms.
Yes "source is cached in RAM" is what I call buffering, but I rebooted the machines before the second test to be certain that there was nothing in memory. Transfers are being done between SATA internal drives. Will sort the Kaspersky thing out when I do some more tests tomorrow (Thursday.)
|
|
|
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=249
Not sure - if pinging something on the internet any delay can be external or internal and MS did overhaul the networking stack between XP and Win7 so there are differences there.
But if you ping another IP on your LAN and still have delayed replies but only on the new GB card that would be unusual.
XP also has a pathping command:
pathping -q 10 destination
The above example would send 10 pings to each hop along the route to the destination, similar to tracert (traceroute) but usually returns the route info quicker then the ping stats afterwards. If you don't specify a -q option the default is 100 pings to each hop!
(I use TBB's BQM)
prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on n e w n e t: ADSL2+ / 21CN at 2.5Mbps / 800k
Edited by prlzx (Thu 13-Oct-11 00:51:39)
|
|
|
Ping to router (192.168.1.254 - tg585) from XP via Gigabit switch, don't have the Win7 machine fired up at the moment:
C:\Documents and Settings\me>pathping -q 10 192.168.1.254
Tracing route to 192.168.1.254 over a maximum of 30 hops
0 xxxxxxxx.lan [192.168.1.xx]
1 192.168.1.254
Computing statistics for 2 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 xxxxxxxx.lan [192.168.1.xx]
0/ 10 = 0% |
1 0ms 0/ 10 = 0% 0/ 10 = 0% 192.168.1.254
Trace complete.
Looks OK?
Edit: Realtek RTL8169/8110 Family Ethernet NIC (XP gigabit card) set to Auto Negotiation (default) not to 1.0 Gbps Full Duplex...
Edited by 4M2 (Thu 13-Oct-11 01:36:12)
|
|
|
|
XP to Win7 via gigabit switch:
C:\Documents and Settings\me>pathping q- 10 192.168.1.xx
Tracing route to 192.168.1.xx over a maximum of 30 hops
0 xxxxxxxx.lan [192.168.1.xx]
1 192.168.1.xx
Computing statistics for 25 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 xxxxxxxx.lan [192.168.1.xx]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 0ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 192.168.1.xx
Trace complete.
File transfer is still around 30MB/s with my preferred Kaspersky IS settings on both machines...might change the settings later in order to verify that that there is not a issue elsewhere, although that speed is more than adequate.
What is the command from Win7 32bit Command Prompt to do the above test?
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
