10 computers attached to a router, getting performance issues.

[etalns]

I have 10 computers which essentially sit there and send connections out to different ports all day. That's probably the easiest way to explain what they do. Here's a picture of the set up:

http://76.12.204.4/systempics/DSC09832.JPG
s
During the day, when they have to send out less connections, they're meeting their "timings" quicker. The timing is the time they must complete a connection in so that what they're doing works. At night, when they're doing more, they all begin to miss their timings. The network connection itself isn't being maxed out, so I'm suspecting that the router might be overloaded.

If I cancel tasks on a few computers at night and leave them, then the rest of them start working fine, so it's definitely a load issue of some sort, and in terms of the network connection capability (20 mbit) I'm not even close to maxing it out.

The current set up is

Cable modem --> WRT54G Router.

WRT54G Router --> 3 systems + an 8 port switch

The 8 port switch houses an additional 7 computers.

The modem had some tests run, and it's fine. Is it logical to assume my router is at fault here? And if so, what would be my best bet? Should I have two routers attached to a switch that attaches to the cable modem? Is there a higher end router I should consider?

Any help is appreciated.

 

[freegeeks]

maybe the router gets overloaded with all the NAT-ing it has to do

 

[1ceHacka]

I would definitely say that the router is being overloaded. There are ways to check the CPU/Memory usage of the router (may only be with a different firmware on it.) I would recommend moving up to a higher scale router. The simple home Linksys routers can barely handle the 4 ports that they come with, let alone an extra 6 systems.

Cisco makes some very nice small scale routers (871 or 851). These would require you to have basic to advanced understanding of networks as well as a decent understanding of cisco IOS commands.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: 1ceHacka
I would definitely say that the router is being overloaded. There are ways to check the CPU/Memory usage of the router (may only be with a different firmware on it.) I would recommend moving up to a higher scale router. The simple home Linksys routers can barely handle the 4 ports that they come with, let alone an extra 6 systems.

Cisco makes some very nice small scale routers (871 or 851). These would require you to have basic to advanced understanding of networks as well as a decent understanding of cisco IOS commands.

Appreciate the response. Truthfully, I don't know the first thing about networking. What would be a good place to begin learning?

If I decide to go with the Cisco 851, do you think it could effectively handle the 10 machines? And if I needed to add more ports to it, would an off the shelf switch do the job? Or do I need a high end switch as well?

Thanks for your prompt responses, I really appreciate it.

 

[Arcanedeath]

Before you give up on consumer grade stuff and spend big bucks you may want to try a router with the ubicom stream engine like the Dlink DIR 655 or DGL 4300/4500. They do quality of service very well and if you shut off the wireless can tend to handle a pretty heavy load for a consumer grade router.

here's a link for the Stream Engine tech
Ubicom StreamEngine Site

 

[JackMDS]

Assuming that the Internet conncetion itself is adequate for the system, a concoction like is probably part of generating income or doing some type of work that might save Humanity one day, leaving it "hanging" on any Entry Level consumer Router is "silly" at best.

 

[kevnich2]

Just out of curiosity, what are you doing with all of those computers like that?? Yeah that could easily overwhelm a SOHO router with all those connections.

 

[alpineranger]

With the default settings, every time a nat translation is created it is kept around for many hours, and uses up a little bit of memory. With that many computers sitting around asking for new nat connections all the time, it is reasonable that you could be severely stressing this router's resources. Get a router with more memory, or perhaps use one of your many pcs to do the job.

 

[RebateMonger]

Add a second IP and a second router and put half the PCs on it, or set up an old PC as a two-NIC software router.

 

[AstroGuardian]

Try configuring a PC (Internet Server) instead of buying expensive Cisco routers. You can use Windows, Linux etc. for the NAT and routing if there is such.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: AstroGuardian
Try configuring a PC (Internet Server) instead of buying expensive Cisco routers. You can use Windows, Linux etc. for the NAT and routing if there is such.

Why would he want to build an entire computer when he could buy a low end Cisco router? Easier configuration, less maintenance... PC just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[drebo]

A 10-user ASA5505 can be had for ~$350 (50 user is ~$450) at almost any place and will be more than sufficient for his needs. When you factor in the electricity cost of running an extra computer, either ASA will pay for itself in less than a year.

I would recommend going this route.

 

[AstroGuardian]

Well Mr. Bond, here where i live using a router PC makes a LOT of sense.

Old computer = 30 euros.
Cisco = at least 300 euros.
Free Linux distribution.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: James Bond
Why would he want to build an entire computer when he could buy a low end Cisco router? Easier configuration, less maintenance... PC just doesn't make sense to me.

Or harder configuration. I could have a PC router setup in 20 minutes, including installation. It'd take me forever to learn enough cisco commands to do the same thing.

Maintenance is easy, just update when it has to be updated (rarely if you did it right). Which is about what you'd have to do with a cisco too (although, didn't they move to some horrid patch schedule?).

And when you build a PC router if you have crappy hardware it's because you had it lying around. With Cisco you pay for the privilege.

 

[etalns]

Thanks for everyone's feedback. I ended up configuring a PC based router using DD-WRT premium.

It largely came down to what was bottlenecking me. I was maxing out my existing router's connection limit of 4096, while DD-WRT premium will allow me to run 64k connections. I'm sure the Cisco could have worked just as well, but I like the familiarity of DD-WRT.

 

[imagoon]

Well Mr. Bond, here where i live using a router PC makes a LOT of sense. Old computer = 30 euros. Cisco = at least 300 euros. Free Linux distribution.

Typical Cisco 1841: Max of 1A (120watts) normally closer to 35-50watts

Typical home computer: ~150 Watts Max about 250 Watts

Computer averages 3 times the power. Depending on your power costs the router can pay for itself in less than a year and be cheaper TCO. Purchase cost for equipment is only 1 of many factors in tech.