Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
219 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11


  Reply # 375770 2-Sep-2010 14:37
Send private message

kman82:
timbosan:
SepticSceptic:
kman82: the switcher i picked up was a

http://www.shopferret.com.au/cheap-45257865-ASUS-GX1008B-8-port-10-100Mbps-Unmanaged-Layer-2-Ethernet.html


That's not a gig switch, only 10/100 - you need an extra 0, as in 10/100/1000 switch.

That's why you are not getting the thru put - 10 to 12Mbp/s is indicative of only a 100 meg network, and even at that, it is still slow. It will affect some video streaming.

In the task manager network tab, you should be getting around 40-50Mb/s, peaking @ 70-80mpbs. And that's for a 100meg network.



Don't forget that a single copy of transfer is unlikely to provide enough data to saturate a gigabit connection due to limitations in the source system (i.e the WHS), it would be best to test with either multiple copies at the same time, or a proper network testing tool.

But otherwise, 12Mbps is fine for streaming most content, including HD (from memory Freeview HD is less than that?? But Blu-ray is more like 20+ Mbps??)


So why would my 100mb network still be lagging


what do you mean still lagging?  be careful with Mbs and MBs
10 - 12 MB/s times 8 = 80 - 96 Mb/s



19 posts

Geek


  Reply # 375783 2-Sep-2010 14:49
Send private message

Ok folks well getn the switch changed over tonight well see how that goes.and yer I just expected faster file transfers to and from the server. No worries ill let you know how it goes

21542 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4390

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 375828 2-Sep-2010 16:02
Send private message

I frequently see 30-40MB/s across gigabit lan between not to flash computers intertnal sata drives. Less than that to a software raid-5 or externals. To do any more than that I have to have 2 files copying at once, which will do 30-40 on each, any more and they start to choke up somewhere and the total speed is less.

If you are getting 20-40megaBYTES a second, then nothing is wrong




Richard rich.ms

1746 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 356

Trusted

  Reply # 375879 2-Sep-2010 16:58
Send private message

Just perusing the homeserverland site, found this:

Beware of Advanced Format Hard Disks for Windows Home Server

http://www.homeserverland.com/b/hslblog/archive/2010/08/26/beware-of-advanced-format-hard-disks-for-...

Performance degredation ,.... maybe applicable to the 1Tb HDD you now have in your WHS ....





My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government


1746 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 356

Trusted

  Reply # 377195 6-Sep-2010 16:34
Send private message

kman82: Ok folks well getn the switch changed over tonight well see how that goes.and yer I just expected faster file transfers to and from the server. No worries ill let you know how it goes


So, how did you get on ?

Just as an expeiment, I used SyncToy to copy / sync all my music files from my WHS, through a Win 7 PC to a USB HDD connected to the Win 7 PC. Done this way, as the WHS is somewhat physically inaccessible.
Predominately MP3's, but with some AVI's thrown in.

For video files, sustained thruput of 20% utilisation, and MP3 files, 5% utilisation, on a gig network.  At no point was the WHS HDD light constantly on - more like 2 seconds on, 1 second off. I have had higher sustained thru-put if I was transferring files just between the Win 7 PC and WHS - consistantly around 20% utilisation, and the HDD LED generally flat-out .... so it would seem either the USB port, or the USB HDD would be teh bottleneck, for many small files.

Neither the WHS or Win7 PC's are top of the line, by any stretch :-) WHS is a P4 with 1gig RAM, and a mix of SATA and PATA drives, the Win7 is barely newer - a AMD SKT 754 3200, 3gig SDRAM, and is showing it's age.

So if you have newer hardware, you should be at least equallying, if not besting, these rates.




My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government


1468 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147

Subscriber

  Reply # 377201 6-Sep-2010 16:51
Send private message

SepticSceptic: Just perusing the homeserverland site, found this:

Beware of Advanced Format Hard Disks for Windows Home Server

http://www.homeserverland.com/b/hslblog/archive/2010/08/26/beware-of-advanced-format-hard-disks-for-...

Performance degredation ,.... maybe applicable to the 1Tb HDD you now have in your WHS ....



Yeah, so true!  I posted something about these drives last week in another thread.  I bought a 1TB Seagate EARS drive, one of these weird formats, and had nothing but trouble - very very slow transfers, installing WHS took HOURS and performance of streaming videos really suffered.

I tried doing the advanced formatting thing etc, but still crap performance.

Luckily I was able to take it back and swap it for a WD drive, which has been brilliant.

I won't recommend you stay away from these drives for WHS, just not worth the hassle.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.