network planning

[crasher88]

I need some help planning my network, I do quite a bit of video editing with BIG files so I'm planning on going all gigabit. I have 1 laptop that I wanna go wierlessly with, 4 different desktops, with probably more later on, that I want to physicaly hook up with wires though a router. One of those computer will be a central file server that will hold files that all of the other computers can access. I also want to hook up a printer and scanner to the file server that all the computers can use and access over the network and use. Another reson as to why I wanna go all gigabit is that another one of those desktop is gonna be a personal tv dvr machine. I plan on saving all the files it makes from recording over the network and onto the servers harddrives. I know recording tv takes up harddrive space extreamly fast but interal harddrive space gets limited so i wanna use those massive external harddrives but my question is will transfering files to that through usb2.0 be fast enought transferrates for recording tv? Plus I also have game consoles that need connecting to the internet. I'm also concerned about security. Would it be best to just put a local firewall on each computer or would there be a better more secure way? Also going from my current ethernet netowork will I have to upgrade from cat 5 to cat 6 wires? I'v built small lil 2 and 3 computer networks but nothing as big as or as complex as this one and really need some input from someone that has more knowledge.

Thanks
Gary

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: crasher88
I need some help planning my network, I do quite a bit of video editing with BIG files so I'm planning on going all gigabit. I have 1 laptop that I wanna go wierlessly with, 4 different desktops, with probably more later on, that I want to physicaly hook up with wires though a router. One of those computer will be a central file server that will hold files that all of the other computers can access. I also want to hook up a printer and scanner to the file server that all the computers can use and access over the network and use. Another reson as to why I wanna go all gigabit is that another one of those desktop is gonna be a personal tv dvr machine. I plan on saving all the files it makes from recording over the network and onto the servers harddrives. I know recording tv takes up harddrive space extreamly fast but interal harddrive space gets limited so i wanna use those massive external harddrives but my question is will transfering files to that through usb2.0 be fast enought transferrates for recording tv? Plus I also have game consoles that need connecting to the internet. I'm also concerned about security. Would it be best to just put a local firewall on each computer or would there be a better more secure way? Also going from my current ethernet netowork will I have to upgrade from cat 5 to cat 6 wires? I'v built small lil 2 and 3 computer networks but nothing as big as or as complex as this one and really need some input from someone that has more knowledge.

First things first -- this is not a large or complex network D); however, you need to break this up into manageable sections. I'll outline the four major items you discussed:
1) Security
2) Network connectivity (Wired 100/1000mbit/s, Wireless)
3) Network Performance (video editing & bi-directional DVR streaming)
4) Filesystem Performance (Localized to the machine(s) serving content)

Auxiliary to those four, you'll also have a few other things to factor in that you didn't mention:
1) Budget
2) Maintainability

Security: Are you concerned about internal access between nodes? Will you be permitting external access to your content in some fashion? How sensitive is the content you wish to secure?

Network connectivity: Do all machines require gigabit network connectivity? If so, how many connections in all are required? What kind of Internet connectivity do you have? (Cable/DSL/FIOS/fixed wireless/dial-down/sneakernet/?) Cat6 cabling will not be required for this as cat5e will more than meet the specifications you have described. As well, cat6 is vastly more sensitive to termination discrepancies -- I don't recommend it unless you have the proper testing equipment as you really won't net any gain on gigabit connections anyway. Also, your wireless and game consoles won't benefit from gigabit connectivity (or not that I'm aware of) -- scope the port requirements accordingly. (i.e. # of 100mbit/s ports, # of 1000mbit/s ports, etc) As well, will you have more than one Internet uplink?

Network Performance: As mentioned, your wireless clients and game consoles probably won't need smoking performance, nor will they benefit from gigabit speeds if they do not negotiate higher than 100mbit/s. Your major bottlenecks will be between the file server and the few computers you've got for video editing, plus your DVR stream. (In theory, 1920wx1080hx32bpp@60Hz uncompressed could chew up 4gbit/s, but... that's another story for another day so we won't try to accommodate that scenario) For best performance, you should select a gigabit switch that supports >8k (aka jumbo) frames. I don't do much residential stuff (aside for a dot-com millionaire friend of mine who wanted to run gig all over his house when he built it a few years ago) so I can't recommend a practical switch for your home (budget concerns...) but I'm sure others here will step forward with better knowledge on that front.

Filesystem Performance: This is not my strong suit whatsoever. I used to be a SCSI-only person (15k RAID!), then I got tired of having the sound of jet-engines constantly roaring in my home and got rid of the whole lot of it and went with an intel iMac with an external USB 2.0 drive, a radical departure from the performance world. This being said, I'm not the person to ask -- and this forum isn't really a great one for it either. You might have a look over at Storage Review. Perhaps others will chime in.

So, after all is said and done, pending you do not have extremely special security requirements, your breakdown looks rather simple:
1) A wireless router with a 10/100mbit/s switch built-in
2) A gigabit switch that supports jumbo frames (8 or 16 port)
3) CAT5E interconnects
4) <insert storage recommendations here between server and drives>

Good luck, let's see what else comes up from the rest of the community. I personally advise against building an overly complicated network. It sounds more like you enjoy the results of great network connectivity rather than the nuts and bolts of packet movement. It is easy to get distracted by performance numbers and options that you may never need, use or even understand well enough to benefit from (no insult intended here, btw), rather than focusing on delivering practical results within a reasonable budget.

 

[crasher88]

I have a question about the wires. how can you tell if a cable is cat 5, cat5e or cat6. Some of my wires that I have right now don't have any markings or anything that I can tell what type of wire they are.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: crasher88
I have a question about the wires. how can you tell if a cable is cat 5, cat5e or cat6. Some of my wires that I have right now don't have any markings or anything that I can tell what type of wire they are.

There should be something written on the outer jacket of the cabling. If it isn't written, just throw it away or use it for 10/100 mbit/s links. There are thousands of potential things that can go wrong in a network, don't let the things you can easily control (cabling) get in your way.

 

[marulee]

All you need is a gigabit router plus GNIC.

 

[crasher88]

but all the gigabit routers I' vfound only have 4 wired ports on the back

 

[kevnich2]

Originally posted by: crasher88
but all the gigabit routers I' vfound only have 4 wired ports on the back

I don't believe a gigabit router was EVER mentioned here? Stay away from gigabit routers, go with a 100mb router and a larger gigabit switch with enough ports to accommodate your systems.

 

[robmurphy]

I use a haupauge wintv150 pvr card. At the high quality setting it uses about 1.4 Gbyte per hour so that will not even tax a 100 Meg network. This is normal resolution TV however, but even at 4 times that its still well within the specs of 100 Meg ethernet. You should also be OK with a USB 2.0 external drive, or firewire.

Do not rely on the wirless conection for anything that is quick. 100 Meg ethernet will be much quicker.

If you have the PVR files on the server you can watch them on any of the machines on the 100 Meg or Gigabit network. Watching video over a 54 Meg wireless connection however is painful.

If you are processing the video I would leave it on the server and put the output file on the server as well. That would probably be quicker than copying the file to the local machine and then copying the output file back. That keeps all the big files on the server which should make any backups needed simpler. You could use the external hard disks you mention on the server's USB/firewire ports

What specs are your machines?

Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a pain. In theory its 10 times quicker in practice you will be lucky if you get 2 - 3 times quicker.

If you want to go to gigabit you will need to upgrade you wire to Cat 5E at least. Other posts about this recently strongly suggest going to Cat 6, but they also mentioned that you will need this professionaly installing.

As for gigabit switches 8 ports seems to be the limit for home use kit, above that you will be going into the commercial switches. I have a Netgear GS608 which is gigabit, 8 ports and unmanaged. It supports jumbo frames so if you want to use them it will work. This switch works fine for me, and I have not had any problems with it. If you need more than 8 ports there are many other gigabit switches and these start, in the UK, at about 2 - 3 times the price of the Netgear GS608.

You can have a seperate wireless router and connect the switch to this. This would give you the wireless access for your laptop. It will also provide the DHCP server. Most wireless routers will have a basic hardware firewall built in. You could do this with the server machine, but you would need a wireless card for it so that the laptop could connect over wireless. What OS are you going to use on the server machine?

If you already have Cat5 cabling installed, and a working 100 Meg switch I would set up your network on 100 Meg, and see how that performs. If the 4 different desktops are all in use at the same time then have a gigabit connection from the server to the switch and leave the desktops on 100 Meg. If the server and switch are close then you can just use a Cat5E patch lead. I have several Cat5E leads that are 10meters or more and they work fine at Gigabit.

Rob Murphy

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: robmurphy
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a pain. In theory its 10 times quicker in practice you will be lucky if you get 2 - 3 times quicker.

Yeaaaah, I'm going to have to just go ahead and disagree with you there, Rob.

When gigE is deployed correctly, it is relatively easy to see transfers of 600-800 mbit/s. Now, if you're spooling data off a hard drive that can only deliver it at 33MB/s, that's another story -- but the bottleneck really isn't the network link. As well, most modern systems (2GHz and above) will have no problem saturating a single gigE link -- don't forget, it takes the CPU the same amount of time to process a packet with a payload of 40 bytes as it does for a packet whose payload is 8000 bytes. I liken it to carrying a bucket of water. Whether you put one drop in it or 5 gallons in it, you can still carry it relatively easy; however, when you only have to make 10 trips as opposed to 10,000, it's obviously the overhead that kills you.

Anyway, I digress... the rest of the message contains good practical advice.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: robmurphy
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a pain. In theory its 10 times quicker in practice you will be lucky if you get 2 - 3 times quicker.

Yeaaaah, I'm going to have to just go ahead and disagree with you there, Rob.

When gigE is deployed correctly, it is relatively easy to see transfers of 600-800 mbit/s. Now, if you're spooling data off a hard drive that can only deliver it at 33MB/s, that's another story -- but the bottleneck really isn't the network link. As well, most modern systems (2GHz and above) will have no problem saturating a single gigE link -- don't forget, it takes the CPU the same amount of time to process a packet with a payload of 40 bytes as it does for a packet whose payload is 8000 bytes. I liken it to carrying a bucket of water. Whether you put one drop in it or 5 gallons in it, you can still carry it relatively easy; however, when you only have to make 10 trips as opposed to 10,000, it's obviously the overhead that kills you.

Anyway, I digress... the rest of the message contains good practical advice.

600-800 would be a very nicely tuned and designed gig network. Average consumer experience is going to be 150-400Mb/s I would guess, with 400 being damn lucky. This is based on my amateur experience though

 

[crasher88]

Originally posted by: kevnich2
I don't believe a gigabit router was EVER mentioned here? Stay away from gigabit routers, go with a 100mb router and a larger gigabit switch with enough ports to accommodate your systems.

why do you say stay away from gigabit routers?

alright I think I might have this figured out but not totaly sure just one last question. How do switches work and handle mutlipul computer connected to the internet though it. Will it allow all the computers to access the internet at the same time? I appreciate all the help I'm just so uneducated on networking. I just don't want to drop alot of money on hardware just to find out that it doesn't work and have to spend even more money to get it to work or hier someone to come make it work for me.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: crasher88

Originally posted by: kevnich2
I don't believe a gigabit router was EVER mentioned here? Stay away from gigabit routers, go with a 100mb router and a larger gigabit switch with enough ports to accommodate your systems.

why do you say stay away from gigabit routers?

alright I think I might have this figured out but not totaly sure just one last question. How do switches work and handle mutlipul computer connected to the internet though it. Will it allow all the computers to access the internet at the same time? I appreciate all the help I'm just so uneducated on networking. I just don't want to drop alot of money on hardware just to find out that it doesn't work and have to spend even more money to get it to work or hier someone to come make it work for me.

Gig routers are spendy, and usually not as good as a dedicated switch. Since you don't need to route the gig traffic to the internet, your best bet is a good gig switch, uplinked to whatever router you want to use. Yes, uplinking a switch to the switch on the router will make one big happy network....

 

[robmurphy]

The rates I have quoted are as good as I can get using Iperf. I've seen 400 Mbps from my laptop without jumbo frames, but the desktop machines top out at 300 - 350 mbps using iperf and jumbo frames. The 9014 jumbo frame size makes about +20% difference on the iperf measurements. The actual rate I'm getting when transfering files get nowhere near the iperf rates.

The NICs are Intel Pro GT's in a PCI slot. The desktop machines are 3 AMD S939 X2 4600 HPs using the ATI express 200 chipset, and an older machine with a Tualatin Celeron runnig at 1.44 Gig.

XP SP2 did do something to the networking. Many tips and hacks suggested for XP just do not work on SP2. It seems to affect both XP home and XP Pro.

The throughput with a Realtek based PCI NIC was only about 66% of the Intel Pro. Thats what I found when I tested it. I have tried many many many different settings on the Intel NICs, but whatever the send bandwidth tops out at about 310 Mbps, and the receive at about 360 Mbps.

If you look through the forums most other people who have tried this have only got a 2 - 3 times advantage over 100 Meg.

The OS used may affect the performance. It has been mentioned that networks run quicker under Vista than XP. A server OS like 2003 has been reported as better as well. Thats why I did ask what OS would be used.

The hardware used will also affect the the performance over gigabit ethernet, which is why I asked what the spec of the machines are. If you need to use PCI slots then the Intel cards make quite a difference, and bought as a bulk item, i.e. no CD and no manual, they cost me less than the DLINK realtek or other named brands. The driver is easy to find and download from Intels web site. The intel support is excellent.

If you already have the server and the destop PCs its 99% certain they will have 1 or more ethernet connections, and these will be 100 Meg or better. As you already have Cat5 Cables installed I expect you will have a 100 Meg switch. You can setup you network on 100 Meg network and see how that goes. If its the network thats holdng things up then look a spending money on it. If you do go for gigabit then I would think that paying for the installation of Cat6 will be the biggest bill and you would need to look at that first.

My other suggestion deppends where the server is. If its close to the switch you could replace the switch with a gigabit switch, and use Cat5E patch cables to connect the server to the switch. This in theory at least would remove any bottleneck at the server when all the desktop machines are in use. How the switch would cope with such traffic I do not know.

Rob Murphy

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: robmurphy
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a pain. In theory its 10 times quicker in practice you will be lucky if you get 2 - 3 times quicker.

Yeaaaah, I'm going to have to just go ahead and disagree with you there, Rob.

When gigE is deployed correctly, it is relatively easy to see transfers of 600-800 mbit/s. Now, if you're spooling data off a hard drive that can only deliver it at 33MB/s, that's another story -- but the bottleneck really isn't the network link. As well, most modern systems (2GHz and above) will have no problem saturating a single gigE link -- don't forget, it takes the CPU the same amount of time to process a packet with a payload of 40 bytes as it does for a packet whose payload is 8000 bytes. I liken it to carrying a bucket of water. Whether you put one drop in it or 5 gallons in it, you can still carry it relatively easy; however, when you only have to make 10 trips as opposed to 10,000, it's obviously the overhead that kills you.

Anyway, I digress... the rest of the message contains good practical advice.

600-800 would be a very nicely tuned and designed gig network. Average consumer experience is going to be 150-400Mb/s I would guess, with 400 being damn lucky. This is based on my amateur experience though

While I won't assert that the average consumer experience is low, I am suggesting that it is in no way the fault of the cabling (cat5e), switching (jumbo frames, unless it's a garbage switch) or protocol. Oh, and for the record -- iperf sucks. I've personally seen nc -l > /dev/null outrun it even in a tcp vs. udp race!

 

[kevnich2]

I'm running gigabit at my home from my desktop thru a gig switch to my file server. It's not running anything special, just a few 500gb SATA drives and an intel GigE card and I can usually get it going at around 800mb, which translates to a 5gb file in about a minute and 15 seconds. The only reason I went to gig is because when I was doing file transfers between my desktop and my server, the speed would kill the internet on my desktop, going gigabit I can still access internet while doing file transfers. I'm happy with mine

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: robmurphy
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a pain. In theory its 10 times quicker in practice you will be lucky if you get 2 - 3 times quicker.

Yeaaaah, I'm going to have to just go ahead and disagree with you there, Rob.

When gigE is deployed correctly, it is relatively easy to see transfers of 600-800 mbit/s. Now, if you're spooling data off a hard drive that can only deliver it at 33MB/s, that's another story -- but the bottleneck really isn't the network link. As well, most modern systems (2GHz and above) will have no problem saturating a single gigE link -- don't forget, it takes the CPU the same amount of time to process a packet with a payload of 40 bytes as it does for a packet whose payload is 8000 bytes. I liken it to carrying a bucket of water. Whether you put one drop in it or 5 gallons in it, you can still carry it relatively easy; however, when you only have to make 10 trips as opposed to 10,000, it's obviously the overhead that kills you.

Anyway, I digress... the rest of the message contains good practical advice.

600-800 would be a very nicely tuned and designed gig network. Average consumer experience is going to be 150-400Mb/s I would guess, with 400 being damn lucky. This is based on my amateur experience though

While I won't assert that the average consumer experience is low, I am suggesting that it is in no way the fault of the cabling (cat5e), switching (jumbo frames, unless it's a garbage switch) or protocol. Oh, and for the record -- iperf sucks. I've personally seen nc -l > /dev/null outrun it even in a tcp vs. udp race!

I've not ever seen problems with iperf, but I have only started using it much. Prior to that/with that we usually use an older version of Chariot, but licensing on that platform sucks, and they have discontinued that product. Iperf puts frames on the wire, and it's reported speeds match switch speeds match ethstatus speeds. Perhaps it was a specific version you had issues with, or my experience is not broad enough to have seen the issue.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: nweaver
I've not ever seen problems with iperf, but I have only started using it much. Prior to that/with that we usually use an older version of Chariot, but licensing on that platform sucks, and they have discontinued that product. Iperf puts frames on the wire, and it's reported speeds match switch speeds match ethstatus speeds. Perhaps it was a specific version you had issues with, or my experience is not broad enough to have seen the issue.

I don't question its ability to accurate report what it is sending or receiving, I question its ability to even lay down enough data to reach gigabit, regardless of what the interface is capable of.

I'm not alone in that opinion either, google around and you'll at least stumble on some OpenBSD developers harping about the same thing -- and their O/S is nowhere near as fast as say.. FreeBSD. Regardless, I should stop pooping in this thread about iperf and gigabit; perhaps we're diluting the poor guy's idea of what fast is/was? d'oh!

 

[spidey07]

That's not threadcrapping.

This is a full on hijack. ARRR mateys.

 

[crasher88]

no I appreciate all the input, I know there are alot of factors that will effect how much data gets pushed though the nic card. I know at the moment I'm maxing out current hardward capabilites. So I must upgrade even tho I might not be getting that much of an increase it performance every lil bit will help. And over time the computers I build in the furute will slowly start pushing the limits of that hardware. But right now I'm just thinking about the future a lil bit because i'v been thinking about doing this for quite some time I'd rather do it now before I built my more computers just to have to upgrade them later on down the road with gigabit network cards.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: nweaver
I've not ever seen problems with iperf, but I have only started using it much. Prior to that/with that we usually use an older version of Chariot, but licensing on that platform sucks, and they have discontinued that product. Iperf puts frames on the wire, and it's reported speeds match switch speeds match ethstatus speeds. Perhaps it was a specific version you had issues with, or my experience is not broad enough to have seen the issue.

I don't question its ability to accurate report what it is sending or receiving, I question its ability to even lay down enough data to reach gigabit, regardless of what the interface is capable of.

I'm not alone in that opinion either, google around and you'll at least stumble on some OpenBSD developers harping about the same thing -- and their O/S is nowhere near as fast as say.. FreeBSD. Regardless, I should stop pooping in this thread about iperf and gigabit; perhaps we're diluting the poor guy's idea of what fast is/was? d'oh!

ok....one quick test here showed 3016, pushing from Windows to Linux, cheap Netgear gig switch between them. That was over 300 seconds, maybe I would get better times with a better tool, I'll have to look into stuff.....

 

[crasher88]

Originally posted by: robmurphy
I use a haupauge wintv150 pvr card. At the high quality setting it uses about 1.4 Gbyte per hour so that will not even tax a 100 Meg network.

Rob Murphy

are you happy with the haupauge tv card? Right now I have an ait tv wonder card and I'm having problems, but I don't know if its hardware, software, or signal problems.

also are there any programs that can test the speeds of home networks to see if everything is working up to par?

 

[robmurphy]

I am only reporting my experiences. I do not know what OS Polar is running, but most of what has been quoted has not stated the OS used.

Its not the switch, cables, or frame size thats the problem. Gigabit does not need crossover cables, and one of the first things I did was conect NIC to NIC and guess what the transfer speeds were the same as going via the switch.

Remember I am giving speeds between:

XP pro and XP Pro

2000 Pro, and XP home/Pro

XP home and XP Pro

If you are comparing this to a machine with Unix/Linux/Server 2003 then that's not a fair comparison.

I use iperf because its what was suggested here and on Toms hardware. Iperf takes the disk out of the equation. What would you suggest instead?

My main point is that the gigabit network could involve major expense, and give only little reward.

The idea of these forums, and the what crasher88 is asking, is whats the best bang per buck. To do this you need to make the best of the existing kit and cabling. The cabling we know is Cat5, but what is the hardware and the OS used?.

I know you are maxing out the current hardware and network, but at what point?

Are you already usng the server?

What are your network connections?

What is your switch?

Gigabit ethernet may sound like the answer, but its not the universal panacea many expect. I have found this out myself through trying it.

Rob Murphy

 

[crasher88]

all computers windows xp pro sp2
router linksys wrt300n
cables? most of them are just chepo cables my cousin took from him job and gave me, no lables or any way of knowing what type of cable they are
all desktops are using NIC built into the mother board
laptop is using the built int wirelss g card

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: nweaver
I've not ever seen problems with iperf, but I have only started using it much. Prior to that/with that we usually use an older version of Chariot, but licensing on that platform sucks, and they have discontinued that product. Iperf puts frames on the wire, and it's reported speeds match switch speeds match ethstatus speeds. Perhaps it was a specific version you had issues with, or my experience is not broad enough to have seen the issue.

I don't question its ability to accurate report what it is sending or receiving, I question its ability to even lay down enough data to reach gigabit, regardless of what the interface is capable of.

I'm not alone in that opinion either, google around and you'll at least stumble on some OpenBSD developers harping about the same thing -- and their O/S is nowhere near as fast as say.. FreeBSD. Regardless, I should stop pooping in this thread about iperf and gigabit; perhaps we're diluting the poor guy's idea of what fast is/was? d'oh!

ok....one quick test here showed 3016, pushing from Windows to Linux, cheap Netgear gig switch between them. That was over 300 seconds, maybe I would get better times with a better tool, I'll have to look into stuff.....

interesting...one client/server, single gig switch...get 300Mb/s, 2 clients, one server and I get 2 260Mb/s streams...sounds like iperf is a bit of a craptastic solution...

 

[robmurphy]

are you happy with the haupauge tv card? Right now I have an ait tv wonder card and I'm having problems, but I don't know if its hardware, software, or signal problems.

also are there any programs that can test the speeds of home networks to see if everything is working up to par?

I'm happy with the Haupauge card. The Haupauge mpeg compression is done in hardware so its quit low CPU occupancy. You have many different quality settings, and on some the compression is very higj but the image quality suffers. The Haupauge is a normal analogue TV PVR so is no good for digital TV, or High def TV.

Iperf keeps coming up. It was recomended on this and THG forums, its free. Maybe there is some other free software available, but I do not know of it.


all computers windows xp pro sp2
router linksys wrt300n
cables? most of them are just chepo cables my cousin took from him job and gave me, no lables or any way of knowing what type of cable they are
all desktops are using NIC built into the mother board
laptop is using the built int wirelss g card .

You need to check on the NICs built in to the motherboard. Are they gigabit NICs? If they are not and you want gigabit then you are going to need a PCI or PCIE gigabit NIC. If they are gigabit then check what support they have for jumbo frames. If they all support jumbo frames then it makes sense to get a switch that supports jumbo frames. As far as I know most of the routers with gigabit switches do not support jumbo frames.

If one or more of the NICs does not support jumbo frames then do not worry about jumbo frame support on the switch. Not using jumbo frames may make life easier on connecting the switch to the router. As they will have the same frame size it should not bother the switch. I have 2 seperate networks 1 at 100Meg for printer and internet sharing, and another at 1 Gig for file sharing. All NICS support jumbo frames 0f 9014, as does the switch.

As stated before the cables should be marked. If they are not and they are quite short they should be OK for 100 Meg. For Gigabit you need Cat5E leads or better. I have used Cat5E upto 10 meters and its been fine.

I would build up you server machine first and see how that goes on the present setup you have. If you short of ports disconnect one of the desktops.



interesting...one client/server, single gig switch...get 300Mb/s, 2 clients, one server and I get 2 260Mb/s streams...sounds like iperf is a bit of a craptastic solution...

I get the similar results. I became suspicous that the bandwidth was not symetrical so I had 1 server and ran 2 clients at the same time. The total sending from the server was 310 Mbps, and the total receiving was 360 Mbps. I have one machine that will send at 140 Mbps and receive at 310 Mbps (Compaq SR1340, AMD X2 4600, 1 gig dual channel ram). Really annoying thing about that is that is the machine I was going to use as the server. I have tried it with XP Home Sp2 and XP Pro SP2, both gave the same results. The XP Pro was a clean installation not an upgrade, made no difference. MY old 1.44 Gig Celeron machine with 1/2 the memory and Win 2K pro wipes the floor with it on the networking side.