Should I get a gigabit router?

[perdomot]

Just built a file server to store all of my video files and the new server has a gigabit NIC just like my main pc. I'm using a netgear router with the "b" standard and getting about 10MB/sec transfer rates. if I get a gigabit router, will the speed increase significantly and by how much should I expect? Can someone with a gigabit home network advise me on a good router to buy? Thanks all.

 

[Saga]

Personally, I use a SMC router that plugs into a Gigabit SMC switch that I use to swap files between my machines. You really don't notice a significant increase in data transfer rates on a gigabit switch unless the following requirements are met:

A) The network cards and cabling are, of course, gigabit-enabled/standard.
B) Your router/switch utilizes "jumbo packet" technology on the hardware.

Usually, a device that is doing both the routing and the switching can get a lot of packet collision when handling lots of traffic, which is why traditionally it is suggested to get a stand-alone router and switch combination for most given network configs - but it's honestly pretty reliant on how much traffic you are doing. If this is a 2 PC setup, a gigabit router will handle your needs adequately between the internet and those two machines. For 3-4+, consider a more refined configuration of router + switch so the devices can do what they are intended and really shine.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: perdomot
Just built a file server to store all of my video files and the new server has a gigabit NIC just like my main pc. I'm using a netgear router with the "b" standard and getting about 10MB/sec transfer rates. if I get a gigabit router, will the speed increase significantly and by how much should I expect? Can someone with a gigabit home network advise me on a good router to buy? Thanks all.

You could just add a gigabit switch, e.g. D-Link DGS-2205/DGS-2208 (note that you lose one port connecting to the router).

But if you're stuck with wireless-b and WEP security at most, it could be a good idea to consider an upgraded router as well. There are also two ways to do this -- new router + gigabit switch, or integrated router + gigabit.

Performance varies quite a lot; can be complex to analyze and non-intuitive, and is often misunderstood. For random hardware / software, I think 30 MB/s is a reasonable target for single disk to single disk transfers of large files over consumer gigabit and reasonably modern gear. That's still around 3x the speed of good 100 Mb/s networking.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Izusaga
You really don't notice a significant increase in data transfer rates on a gigabit switch unless the following requirements are met:

A) The network cards and cabling are, of course, gigabit-enabled/standard.
B) Your router/switch utilizes "jumbo packet" technology on the hardware.

I disagree with (B). I don't dispute that jumbo frame support can help, but disagree that it is necessary for a "significant increase".

I interpret a 3x performance increase as a "significant increase", and know that this and higher can be done without jumbo frames. At at least the entry level, I think jumbo frames are more trouble than they're worth.

When getting into gigabit, it's tempting to think that the network is (still) the bottleneck, and you need to get fancy gear, jumbo frames, etc., to really benefit from it (whatever that's supposed to mean), but this is wrong -- at the entry level of gigabit, the network is not likely to be the bottleneck; the rest of the stuff is -- e.g. the drives, the file transfer protocol, the OS and its tuning.

I posted some example network performance numbers in the following thread. Most of them do not use jumbo frames. Except for when jumbo frames are used, the communication goes through a DGL-4300 router.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2062835&enterthread=y

(There is one case there where I show significant performance improvement with jumbo frames. However: (1) Even the lower non-jumbo performance exceeds average single drive performance. (2) I demonstrate better performance without jumbo frames in some other cases. (3) In a different OS (Vista), the same NIC can performs much better without jumbo frames.)

 

[kevnich2]

I would say 1, it's time to upgrade your router to a better model wireless router (forget the gigabit on the router though). The best model out currently is the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54. It's the most feature packed out of the box, excellent range, etc and can be upgraded to a different firmware if you like. #2, get a small gigabit switch and daisy chain it to the router. Connect your PC's to the switch and the switch to the router. You won't notice any speed drops because the only traffic going through the router are DHCP requests and internet requests.

 

[JackMDS]

First you have to do a behavioral evaluation.

A lot of people get into this Giga conundrum just because their mobo manufacturer spend 50cents and put a Giga NIC.

If you do not really need Giga traffic forget about it because with consumer hardware and client OS Giga ?Sux?.
This would describe a little more.

Home Giga Network: http://www.ezlan.net/giga.html

Giga networking - http://www.ezlan.net/giga_net.html

No matter what do not get a Giga Router.

Get a Good Router and a Giha switch.

An inexpensive Giga switch with Jumbo frames, http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833129025


Disclaimer, I do not have any interest, or any ties, with hardware manfacturers, and vendors that I sometime link to, or mention.

 

[Madwand1]

E:\tools>dir f:\test\test0\10.gb
Volume in drive F is hrd5-6-6464
Volume Serial Number is 24A1-BA99

Directory of f:\test\test0

08/24/2006 06:01 PM 10,000,000,000 10.gb
1 File(s) 10,000,000,000 bytes
0 Dir(s) 75,577,425,920 bytes free

E:\tools>time 0 nul
The current time is: 15:48:06.39
Enter the new time:
E:\tools>xcopy /y f:\test\test0\10.gb \\intel-vista\n\test\test9
F:\test\test0\10.gb
1 File(s) copied

E:\tools>time 0 nul
The current time is: 15:49:37.80

That's 10 GB file transfer in 91.41s -> ~ 109.4 MB/s.

Vista to Vista, consumer hardware, on-board NICs, DGL-4300, no jumbo frames.

Not single drives though.

Showing:

"Consumer OSs suck" -- often true, but not always. This is better than 2003 server here.
"You must use jumbo frames for good performance" -- sometimes helps, but not always. Not much room for improvement here.
"Don't use a gigabit router, standalone switches are better" -- your choice; not much room for improvement here.

 

[JackMDS]

Stand alone Giga switch is Not much better.

However getting a Combo Giga Switch/ Wireless Router, restrict your choice to few Routers that are Not necessarily the Best and are very expensive.

 

[perdomot]

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like my best option is to get a giga switch so I was looking at this one from Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833122140
Would this be a good one? I like Netgear products so I was thinking of getting this one. I also noticed that there seems to be some debate on how much of a performance benefit there is with this kind of setup. Can other folks tell me their speeds on their rigs? My main PC is XP home but the server is W2K pro so I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Thanks again.

 

[perdomot]

Just want to make sure I got this right: By using a giga switch, PC A will transfer files to PC B throught the switches faster giga hardware and the older 10/100 router will have no effect, correct?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: perdomot
Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like my best option is to get a giga switch so I was looking at this one from Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833122140
Would this be a good one? I like Netgear products so I was thinking of getting this one.

I have a similar Netgear -- GS608, and a D-Link DGS-2205. I think the D-Link is better (few issues with cables and switching connections). Once stabilized though, the performance is going to be indistinguishable, so you can pick the Netgear if you happen to like its vertical mount (and complementary back flips off the table / kindergarten port numbering / etc. better 🙂.

And yes, the bulk of local communication will go directly from switch port to switch port and not through the router.

 

[KenAF2]

Originally posted by: perdomot
Just want to make sure I got this right: By using a giga switch, PC A will transfer files to PC B throught the switches faster giga hardware and the older 10/100 router will have no effect, correct?

That's correct.

I own that Netgear as well as the DGS-2208. Performance is about the same, as far as I can tell, but the Negear runs very hot. I would not recommend the Netgear if your ambient temperatures exceed 80 degrees.

The DGS runs much cooler, provided you get the newer 5v version. The first version of that switch was 7v and ran almost as hot as the Netgear, but D-Link replaced it with a 5v version about six months ago.

The DGS switches use the same line of Vitesse switch chips found in the D-Link DIR-655 router and SMC's newest switches. I have not taken apart a Netgear, so I don't know what it uses.

 

[perdomot]

QUICK UPDATE:
I got the DGS-2205 and set it up as suggested. I just transfered a folder with 13GB of video in 4minutes 33 seconds. If I'm calculating right, thats a little over 47.6 MB/sec. Is this a good transfer rate for the setup I have? I have not enabled jumbo frames or altered any NIC settings so I'd appreciate any configuration tips. Thanks.

 

[perdomot]

Something is amiss. I enabled jumbo frames on both NICs at 9000 and transfer speed decreased so that it took 40 seconds longer to transfer the same files. I thought jumbo frames would be good for video files. Can anybody explain?

 

[JackMDS]

Buying a 9000 Jumbo frames switch is a good idea since it gives you a lot of flexibilty.

However the most efficient frame size have to be work across the network and higher number is Not necessarily always the best.

 

[perdomot]

Definately not the best in my case. The default settings are getting me almost 50 MB/sec in real world transfers and I suspect thats the norm unless someone tells me otherwise.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: perdomot
Definately not the best in my case. The default settings are getting me almost 50 MB/sec in real world transfers and I suspect thats the norm unless someone tells me otherwise.

I think that's better than average actually. Enjoy it (rather than tweak it ad nauseum to try to squeeze a few more MB/s out of it, as I would probably do...)

 

[perdomot]

Yeah that's what I've been thinking. Now I have to figure out why sleep mode seems to disconnect the PCs.