Something wrong with my LANspeed

[Bluehaze]

Guys,

Please help me clarify if i should get a gigabit LAN router or if i just need to tweak the router i have now.

The router i have now is one that is given to my by Verizon from subscribing to FIOS. it is a 100Mbps LAN. However when ever i transfer files from my computer to my server connected to this router it takes aprox. 5-6inutes to transfer a 899MB file. Link speed according to windows task manager is showing as 100 Mbps. My problem is when i do transfer the file the Windows Task manager shows me as only using between 30-40percent of the bandwidth. Is there any tweaks i can use so that it will use all 100 or as close to 100%? I want to maximize the amount of bandwidth it should be using now before i switch over to 1 gigbit network only for the darn thing to use 20% or such. both my server and other computer can do 1 gig lan just need to get a new router.

However i just tested this.. when i transfer the 899 file from my SERVER to my computer it uses 95% of the bandwidth according to the task manager. So what exactly is going on? Why from my comp to server it only uses 30-50%.. But from my server to computer it uses all bandwidth. I am confused.. please help.

thanks.

 

[cprince]

Originally posted by: Bluehaze
However i just tested this.. when i transfer the 899 file from my SERVER to my computer it uses 95% of the bandwidth according to the task manager. So what exactly is going on? Why from my comp to server it only uses 30-50%.. But from my server to computer it uses all bandwidth. I am confused.. please help.

The transfer speed also depends on the speed of the hard drives. The most likely explanation is that the hard drive on the server is faster than the one on your computer. Also, the server probably got less stuff running than the desktop. I think that the bottleneck is not on the switch, but on the computer. However, you may want to upgrade to gigabit if you have not max out the server.

 

[vorgusa]

Did you check to see what the CPU usage is on the Computer during the transfer.. and how old is the Computer? Most fairly new hard drives will handle 12.5 MB/s to get your 100 Mb/s.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

Bluehaze
However i just tested this.. when i transfer the 899 file from my SERVER to my computer it uses 95% of the bandwidth according to the task manager. So what exactly is going on? Why from my comp to server it only uses 30-50%.. But from my server to computer it uses all bandwidth. I am confused.. please help.

cprince
The transfer speed also depends on the speed of the hard drives. The most likely explanation is that the hard drive on the server is faster than the one on your computer. Also, the server probably got less stuff running than the desktop. I think that the bottleneck is not on the switch, but on the computer. However, you may want to upgrade to gigabit if you have not max out the server.

I'm thinking no. A HDD will have a faster read speed than write speed in pretty much all scenarios. And seeing that his normal computer receives (is writing) the file faster than his server is receiving, this can not be an explanation.

I'm more curious as to what OS the Desktop is running and what OS the Server is running.

 

[Bluehaze]

Guys,

Thank you for the input. My computer is pretty Fast with Asus M2n Sli Deluxe Mobo. AMD X2 3.0ghz Dual Core running under XP 2gig Ram. The server is running under Windows Home Server with the cheapest processor Sempron 2.2 ghz.

The file being transferred is located on my C drive which is a WD Raptor 10k rpm 80gig. I transferred to my server which is a WD 500gig 7200rpm. When i MOVE the 899mb file to Server the CPU is 3-5% load. The network load at between 19-50% only. Link speed showing as 100Mbps.

When i Move the 899mb file from Server to Computer i get 91% utilization on the Network and the CPU load at 17%. Link speed is showing as 100Mbps.

So i am thinking here that it is my Server CPU that could be the culprit? Just not processing the file to the HD?
Or another possibility would be the HD but again these are WD HD and Seagate HD all 7200 rpm. Can anyone shed some light with the info provided?

Thanks.

 

[spidey07]

1) make sure you're using good store bought cables
2) make sure both network cards are set to autonegotiate speed and duplex, can be found under your network card properties.

If the thruput is one way that can be hard drive, cabling, duplex, etc. Also if you're moving the same file over and over again a lot of it will be cached on the server (memory). Not so with the home OS.

 

[Madwand1]

It's common for file transfer performance to be asymmetrical. Push vs. pull -- pushes are generally faster. However, pushing to a Windows server OS is generally faster than pushing to Windows desktop OS. That said, "generally" here is not so general, and there are lots of variations.

Gigabit is generally strongly recommended for large file transfers, but if you're heavily bottlenecked somewhere other than your networking, you might not get the performance improvement you hope for. Still, gigabit can be very inexpensive these days, and at some point you should take the leap.

You can test gigabit performance without a gigabit switch, by connecting the server and desktop directly with a standard cable, then adjusting for the IP addresses, and transferring files directly. Gigabit generally supports auto-crossover, so standard cables are usually fine.

"Raw" networking performance should also be investigated. This factors out the HD and file system and much of the OS. E.g. using iperf version 1.7:

server: iperf -s
client: iperf -c server -l 64k -t 15 -i 3 -r

If you find that the network benches fine, and the file system also benches fine, but file transfers don't, this could be an issue of the OS, its tuning and file transfer implementation. This is commonly seen. The easiest solution for occasional bulk transfer would probably be using a well-performing ftp implementation, (e.g. FileZilla, although it's a bit CPU heavy and certainly not necessarily the best).

BTW, you don't need to replace the router to go to gigabit. It's sufficient to add an inexpensive gigabit switch between your existing router and computers.

 

[spikespiegal]

pushes are generally faster

Is that due to the data/cluster size of SMB transfers -vs- reception, or something else? This used to be the opposite affair with NT4, at least with core mode xfers.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

pushes are generally faster

Is that due to the data/cluster size of SMB transfers -vs- reception, or something else? This used to be the opposite affair with NT4, at least with core mode xfers.

It has to do with the protocol itself (SMB) and how it completely ignores TCP. You'll see a lot of ping-pong at the session layer.

Open up a trace of a SMB transfer to see how ugly it really is. I don't have the time to detail it, but it's about as ugly as you can get.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

pushes are generally faster

Is that due to the data/cluster size of SMB transfers -vs- reception, or something else? This used to be the opposite affair with NT4, at least with core mode xfers.

I don't know. It might have something to do with internal tuning for local vs. remote requests.

SMB 2.0 / Vista didn't behave this way last I checked -- finally pushes and pulls both (Vista to Vista) had the ability to effectively saturate gigabit. I'm not sure if that's gone with SP1 and upcoming 2008 though.