WinXP router?

[foshizzle]

I'm building a new computer, and turn my current computer into a media pc, that will do other things as well.

Both computers will have an onboard 10/100. But what I want to do is put a Gigabit NIC into both also. This way I can transfer files a good bit faster between the 2 comps. I want to run WindowsXP on BOTH computer( no Linux). And what I want to do is make the old comp function as a router. That way I can do this: Cable modem->old comp->new comp(via gigabit). The 10/100 on the new comp goes unused.

I want to do it this way, cuz gigabit NICs are cheap, but the other stuff(routers, switches) are too expensive. And I know I can just get a router and connect the 10/100's to it, but I want to do this via software since it should be a little more powerful than a standalone router. And I also don't want to do it using XP's connection sharing, since it's worse than a regular router.

Does anyone know of any software (free, not free, it doesn't matter) that can function as a router in XP?

On a side note, I know that the PCI bus limits a gigabit NIC, but does anyone know how much?

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

IMO, you're doomed to disappointment with this project. Also, gigabit switches can be had for less than $100, so the price isn't all that prohibitive for someone with multiple computers and broadband access. You can have the SMC 8 port gigabit switch for around $140, and it supports jumbo packets, which I think will be necessary to see significant improvement.

You may wonder why I think that, I have gigabit cards and a normal gigabit switch, and I don't see the huge improvements that I was looking for, and my systems are fairly new. I think you'll be a lot happier with a broadband router and normal 10/100 cards, why waste the money?

 

[Wik]

Pick up a cheap router to share your cable modem and use your 10/100 cards. It will be better then using your computer int the open. Then both are behind the router.

Then connect your two computers with gigabit cards, and make a gigabit x-over cable for high speed transfers between the two. The pinout is different then on a regular x-over cable, so you might have to make your own. That is unless your cards auto sense the wired connection.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

All the gigabit cards I've ever encountered, including the two brands I have, auto-sense the connections and run with straight cables. There is no defined pinout for a gigabit crossover cable that I've ever seen published.

 

[foshizzle]

Thanks for the responses.
I could be wrong here, but I do beleive that it's in the specs for all gigabit NICs to not need a crossover. Just a regular straight thru will do just fine. Any gigabit NIC that needs a special cable is built wrong.

But I thought about it, and I think you guys are right in that I should just get a regular cheapo router to share the internet. But I can't really afford to get a gigabit switch.

So how would I go about making it so that when the 2 computers commincate with each other, they go thru the gigNICs, and when they have to get to the internet, they go to the router, via the 10/100s? Or would XP be smart enough to do all this on its own?

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

XP should do it on it's own, but once again, prepare to be disappointed in the results.

 

[foshizzle]

ok, how bad is it gonna be? I know that I'm not gonna get a full gigabit, but all I'm looking to do is get about 500 mbit. Is that unrealistic(from your experience)?

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

That is incredibly unrealistic in my estimation. I indeed get raw transfers of between 500-550mbits using QCheck, but when I transfer files I get about 10mbytes/sec when I push the file (write from the client to the "server") and about 20-22mbytes/sec when I pull the file (read from the "server" to the client). Since my primary use was to be writing backups to my networked system, I didn't get much of an improvement over 100mbit speeds. I've seen several other people with similar stories, so I don't think mine is unique. Both machines are fairly new with 2.4ghz P4 and an AMD 2400+. I think a major problem is the SMB file handling overhead, but I really don't know. I suspect that if I had a real server O/S running, the results might be different. I plan on trying that one of these days, it might be interesting...

 

[kursplat]

might be WAYYY out in left field , but doesn't a gigabit card pretty much max out the PCI buss chocking everything in it's path ?
good luck

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Yes, a gigabit card does max out the PCI bus, in my case apparently at about 500mbits. OTOH, I get file transfers much slower than the raw data suggests I should, so there's more than just bus limiting going on...

 

[foshizzle]

yeah, from what I've read PCI maxes it out at 500, I made this post to try and confirm that.
I'm pretty sure that the speed of the machine shouldn't limit anything(unless it's like a pentium 1 or 2).

but gunrunner, how were you transferring that stuff? I'm planning on using ftp, which should be a good bit faster. From my experience, using windows file sharing is a good bit slower than ftp.

For me if I can double the speed of a 100mbit card, that would be worth it for 50 bucks.

 

[kursplat]

I get file transfers much slower than the raw data suggests I should, so there's more than just bus limiting going on...

well , you need to add everything else that goes over the PCI buss too.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Originally posted by: foshizzle
yeah, from what I've read PCI maxes it out at 500, I made this post to try and confirm that. I'm pretty sure that the speed of the machine shouldn't limit anything(unless it's like a pentium 1 or 2). but gunrunner, how were you transferring that stuff? I'm planning on using ftp, which should be a good bit faster. From my experience, using windows file sharing is a good bit slower than ftp. For me if I can double the speed of a 100mbit card, that would be worth it for 50 bucks.

Well, I tried several FTP servers and SMB file transfers, never got decent speeds for any of them. My disks shouldn't be the limiting factor, since they can locally read/write as much faster speeds than I get doing gigabit transfers. Since I'm not the only one to report the same results, I can only assume that one of the components in the chain is a weak link. Now, the mission is to find that link...

 

[foshizzle]

actually gunrunner, now that I think about it, the disk could very well be the limiting factor(I'm assuming you're not running SCSI, or RAID, but just regular old IDE). Think about most hdd's, although capable of going 100 or 133 mbytes/sec never actually get near those numbers. A large file, would average a rate of about 30-35 mbytes/s(at least on any IDE drive I've seen). That translates to roughly 240-280 mbits/sec. Do those speeds sound along the lines of what people are reporting that they're getting?

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

I can copy a file on the two local systems (each of them) at around 45mb/sec, assuming I'm copying to different physical drives. That being the case, it's seems obvious to me that disk read/write speed isn't the bottleneck, it has to be something about the SMB protocol to write a file remotely to another system. Also, I read from the remote system at twice the speed I can write to it, further evidence that it's some kind of protocol issue, not raw disk speeds.