Network Speed - Real World?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peer, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. Peer

    Peer Guest

    Gidday

    We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.

    What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    with no applications in the background?

    100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    secs.
    PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs

    Just wondering, I don't have a problem.

    Cheers
    Peer, Apr 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peer said the following on 5/04/2005 11:27 a.m.:
    > Gidday
    >
    > We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    > All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.
    >
    > What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    > with no applications in the background?
    >
    > 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    > File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    > secs.
    > PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    > PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    > PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs
    >
    > Just wondering, I don't have a problem.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >

    Network Overheads which means divide by 8 is not correct

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
    However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Collector»NZ, Apr 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:02:29 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > Peer said the following on 5/04/2005 11:27 a.m.:
    >> Gidday
    >>
    >> We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    >> All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.
    >>
    >> What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    >> with no applications in the background?
    >>
    >> 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    >> File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    >> secs.
    >> PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    >> PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    >> PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs
    >>
    >> Just wondering, I don't have a problem.
    >>
    >> Cheers
    >>
    >>

    > Network Overheads which means divide by 8 is not correct


    Yeah, moving iso's around my machines via crossover cable takes around the
    same times as those quoted.
    Also there would be a _lot_ of traffic going in the other direction
    --

    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked
    Shane (aka froggy), Apr 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Peer

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:02:29 +1200, Collector»NZ wrote:

    >> 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    >> File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    >> secs.


    > Network Overheads which means divide by 8 is not correct


    Or more accurately, divide by 8 is correct to go from Mb/s to MB/s, but
    network overheads mean that you end up shifting more than 665MB of data
    across the wire.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <f4k4e.15897$>, "Peer" <> wrote:
    >Gidday
    >
    >We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    >All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.
    >

    All the cards are the same? All using the latest drivers?
    Don't underestimate the impact that a crappy card will have on transfer
    speeds. What you're seeing below indicates that PC4 is probably using
    something with a cheap'n'nasty Realtek chipset, and the other two are
    using slightly less cheap'n'nasty chipsets.

    >What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    >with no applications in the background?
    >
    >100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.

    Out here in the "real world", we usually divide by 10. If we see
    performance better than /10, we call it a nice bonus and keep on
    dividing by 10. The reason is due to the network overhead mentioned in
    another post. When you send a 1MB file via IP, you actually end up
    sending more like 1.1-1.2MB of data due to all the overhead associated
    with IP.

    >File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    >secs.

    *SNIP*

    Perfect world. Realistically, you're more likely to have it take about
    70 seconds, if you're using quality (Intel or 3Com) cards, perfect
    infrastructure (maybe using 100-base-FX), and a Cisco or similar switch.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Apr 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Collector»NZ wrote:
    >> What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    >> with no applications in the background?
    >> 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    >> File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    >> secs.
    >> PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    >> PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    >> PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs


    > Network Overheads which means divide by 8 is not correct


    usually I devide by 10(10Mbytes/s) on a "good" network, if on
    home/consumer gear, devide by 11(~9.1Mbytes/s) is normally about all
    you're gonna get.

    going by what I've said, it still doesnt look right.

    Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Peer

    Peer Guest

    I havent checked it all but as far as I am aware , That is the case.
    As I said, just curious.

    Thanks

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    > >> What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real

    world
    > >> with no applications in the background?
    > >> 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    > >> File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    > >> secs.
    > >> PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    > >> PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    > >> PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs

    >
    > > Network Overheads which means divide by 8 is not correct

    >
    > usually I devide by 10(10Mbytes/s) on a "good" network, if on
    > home/consumer gear, devide by 11(~9.1Mbytes/s) is normally about all
    > you're gonna get.
    >
    > going by what I've said, it still doesnt look right.
    >
    > Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?
    Peer, Apr 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Peer wrote:
    >>going by what I've said, it still doesnt look right.
    >>Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?


    > I havent checked it all but as far as I am aware , That is the case.
    > As I said, just curious.


    Could you set them to auto and re-try... you've got me curious.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Peer

    Windows User Guest

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:27:37 +1200, "Peer" <> wrote:

    >Gidday
    >
    >We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    >All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.
    >
    >What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    >with no applications in the background?
    >
    >100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    >File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    >secs.
    >PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    >PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    >PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs
    >
    >Just wondering, I don't have a problem.


    Depends on the protocol you use
    various overheads apply
    also packets have extra bytes in them
    Windows User, Apr 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Peer

    Enkidu Guest

    Peer wrote:
    > Gidday
    >
    > We have 4 differently specced PC's in a Peer 2 Peer network with various OS.
    > All have 100Mb cards connected thru a switch.
    >
    > What approx speed could I expect during a file transfer in the real world
    > with no applications in the background?
    >
    > 100/8 = 12.5 MB/sec.
    > File of size 665MB moved from PC to PC should take (in theory) about 54
    > secs.
    > PC1 to PC2 took 145 secs
    > PC2 to PC3 took 175 secs
    > PC3 to PC4 took 390 secs
    >
    > Just wondering, I don't have a problem.
    >

    Each chunk of data gets put into a packet including headers.
    Each packet get put into a frame. The overhead is quite
    large, some switches are faster than others. Some NIC work
    better than others. There's a lot of variables.

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
    Enkidu, Apr 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Peer

    Adam Guest

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:25:25 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?


    You've got *me* curious now!

    Do you mean in the network card Device Mangler (sic) tab?

    I usually have it on auto-config - should it be set to 100BaseTX or
    100BaseTX Full_Duplex?

    Adam.
    Adam, Apr 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Adam wrote:
    >>Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?


    > You've got *me* curious now!
    > Do you mean in the network card Device Mangler (sic) tab?
    > I usually have it on auto-config - should it be set to 100BaseTX or
    > 100BaseTX Full_Duplex?


    it depends on the device and driver revision what it says in there.
    but yeah, thats where I meant.

    We've found at work here that the if set to auto all the intel and
    broardcom Gbit cards get it wrong, ending up with a duplex
    mis-match.(they're on 100-half, switch is set to 100-full), makes for
    very slow traffic.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Apr 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Peer

    Adam Guest

    On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:12:21 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >Adam wrote:
    >>>Is each hard set to 100 Full? and the switch set to 100 Full if possible?

    >
    >> You've got *me* curious now!
    >> Do you mean in the network card Device Mangler (sic) tab?
    >> I usually have it on auto-config - should it be set to 100BaseTX or
    >> 100BaseTX Full_Duplex?

    >
    >it depends on the device and driver revision what it says in there.
    >but yeah, thats where I meant.
    >
    >We've found at work here that the if set to auto all the intel and
    >broardcom Gbit cards get it wrong, ending up with a duplex
    >mis-match.(they're on 100-half, switch is set to 100-full), makes for
    >very slow traffic.



    Thanks for that - I'll run a check on my home network :))

    Adam.
    Adam, Apr 5, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    FEAR - real world gameplay benchmarks at bit-tech

    Silverstrand, Oct 25, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    656
  2. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    965
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. justinplace
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    782
    Toolman Tim
    Jan 17, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Q0QtUGlscw==?=

    The world cup reflects the real world!

    =?Utf-8?B?Q0QtUGlscw==?=, Jul 12, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    482
  5. esm
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    585
Loading...

Share This Page