Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: One simple question about NICs 100Mbits

  1. #1
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389

    One simple question about NICs 100Mbits

    I did one last update to my network today , i trow away my old NICs ,was ISA 10 Mbits .
    And i replaced with PCI ones 100Mbits ,with Realtec chips .

    The speed is fantastic , from 650 Kb/s , now i move data with 2.8Mb/s .

    Is this 2.8 Mb/s a good score for 10/100Mbits NICs ?

  2. #2
    SG Enthusiast HongKongPolice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    I...... AM.......... CANADIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posts
    2,147
    no, 100Mbit/sec means at least 10Megabyte/sec. A good score would be 8MB+. Tweak your RWin values 'n stuff
    Abit KR7A-Raid
    Palomino 1.4Ghz @ 1.57Ghz @ default voltage /w DTek Spir@l block 512MB Crucial DDR @ 300Mhz CAS222 ATi OEM Radeon8500 @ 295/275 vmem=3.5v, would of gotten GF3 if they had better filters..... 3Com 905 TX SoundBlaster Live OEM 120gig Western Digital Special Edition (8MB Cache) 20gig Fujitsu 5400rpm (gonna get another WD1200JB for Raid0 soon) LiteOn 24x burner Enermax 350watt PSU (voltage modded) Dell P1110 21" Sony FD Trinitron tube @ 1792x1344 85Hz

  3. #3
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    If you have right about the settings , i need some lessons.

  4. #4
    Advanced Member MagicMikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    617
    Try Full Duplex mode....

  5. #5
    Forum Techie terrancelam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada Computers Built and Fixed personally: 720
    Posts
    5,465

    hmmm

    Well in general, espcially if you using broadband with yout NIC, make sure to get the tweak patches here at speedguide or you can go into the registry and manually change them. I'm not very well informed on this topic, so it's best just to check out the speed patches.
    Intel Core 2 Duo Q8300 2.55Ghz (1333mhz)
    Asus P5N-D
    OCZ Platinum 8gb (2x2gb) PC8000 1000mhz 5-5-5-18
    EVGA 460GTX 1gb PCIE 2.0
    Western Digital Black 640gb x 2 Raid 0
    Coolermaster 1000W Modular PSU
    Antec NSK4480B
    Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    HP TC5700 (Thin Client) 1ghz, 512mb 80gb 1x1000mb NIC 1x100mb NIC running PFSense 1.22
    Linksys WRT-150 running DD-WRT V.24 (Access Point)

    "SG Techies rule!" - Sig Buddies with Amro

  6. #6
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Ok i will try the full dublex mode for start , lucky me ,i notised the settings in the driver panel at advance settings .

    My systems is conected with one UTP cable , no hub or routers .

  7. #7
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    I tryed the Full dublex , i did not get any gain .

    But now i have other problems .
    The systems is one with win2k as server and the other is win98 as client .

    The win98 system handle the conections of the network more faster and reliable than win2k ???

    The win2k needs 10 seconds to locate the shared disks of the win98 system .

    By the other hand the win98 logs and works in the network fast like missile .

    I do not use any netbeui or ISPX

    At win98 system i use Windows log on services ,to join the network .
    I had install netbeui and ISPX to win2k , but i removed them , now only the win98 system can see the shared disks of the win2k one .
    The win2k one it does not see anything iven it self !!

    Wenn i was have network with two win2k systems i did not have all this problems !!

  8. #8
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    574
    It sounds like there is something wrong with your network setup...

    maybe your cables can't support the bandwidth you intended to get or maybe your cables are damaged, won't hurt to check try switching your cables with other ones and see how that goes..

    theoretically you should be getting up to 12.5MB/s data transfers (100/8=12.5)on a 100 base T network setup, and about 1.25MB (10/8=1.25) on a 10 base-T network
    Last edited by newbie1; 10-17-01 at 08:55 PM.

  9. #9
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Well my half of my problems is solved by instaling new drivers for Realtek RTL8139 Family PCI/Cardbus Fast Ethernet Network Interface Cards.

    As my NICs have leds on i am sure that they work at 100 mbits/sec .

    Now the Win2k needs some time to get the network ready from use ,after the boot end up .

    I am trying to find out the trasfer bandwith by moving MP3s from one to the other .

    I set the cards to full dublex mode , what i get is more stable transfer .
    To check the network bandwith i use the windows 98 system monitor software .

    What i see is transfer speeds like 3.8 Mbs/sec with some droping no less than 1.2Mb/sec .

    As i have say before i have 2 systems with one UTP cable connected , i duno remember how they called this way of conection , nul modem or lapling , i thing lapling is for serial conections .
    Any way the network works , but i dont know if i need a 100mbits HUB to get the max speed .

  10. #10
    SG Elite Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    42,161
    HDD continous transfer speed is a value in this equation, the data can only send at the max read/write speeds of your hard drives pulling data continously.....
    "Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor

  11. #11
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Ok i have an awnser to that .

    Win2k system have dual IBMs ATA100 32Mbs/sec averige

    Win98 system have WD 9.1 GB 7200 ATA 33 16Mbs/sec averige

    By all this Brend , you gave me one idea to defrag the sender hard drive , just in case ..
    The hard drive that i send the data is empty .
    Last edited by syncmaster; 10-17-01 at 10:17 PM.

  12. #12
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    Sync-

    I have noticed that W2K takes it time to find shared drives when networked. I cannot seem to find out why, its not that bad, 5-10 secs at most. 98 is a heckuva lot zippier when it comes to locating networked drives. I tend to think that its W2K's massive amount of networking capablities that slows it down. Its looking for lots of permissions and security issues before it allows the connection to go through. I dunno tho. Someone correct me if I'm wrong eh?
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  13. #13
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Nop you are not wrong

    But its a mystery this delay , spesialy to one system like my .

    I can say that the update of the NICs drivers in both systems , from Realtek last drivers with MS signature , did help the win2k to speed up a bit the all network detection .

    The most funny is that i do not load extra networking protocols, like ISPX and NETBEUI .

  14. #14
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    Sync-

    I have a P4 1.4, and its slower on networking connections in W2K everytime(dual boot W2K and 98). I have monkeyed around with NIC settings, gone in a and gutted the protocols and tried just about everything(granted thats not much) I can think of. I think W2K just has more stuff to deal with when making the initial connection. The transfer speeds are equal or greater in W2k once its get up ang going. Around 3-4 megs a sec is where it like to stay at. Lemme know if ya figure out anything cool eh?
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  15. #15
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Ok man

    It looks that we are in the same vagon .

    I will tell ya wen i will found something that really works .

    For the moment i am trying to find some advanced info about improvments in cabling .

    I found also some registy flaws with windows TCP system , but if i do them i will have problems with my internet conection by dial up modem .
    Thats what MS says .

    Ok if i found the solution i will pass it here , like always ..

  16. #16
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Finaly i found some light in the tunel ...

    The way of single cable conection between 2 PCs is actualy a Tryk for simple file transfers .

    The cross over cable by design does not use all the cables of it for tranfering data .
    So its simple to find out that less cables moving data its equal to lower Bandwith

    So its time to play ball again ,and try to find out who is the most advanced HUB 10/100 8 ports and switsing capable .

    Because we are getting more and more deeper in to the Networking stuff , i am moving (lets say) the thread from here to the networking area .
    So follow the link for more questions and awnsers ..

    http://forums.speedguide.net/showthr...threadid=52142
    Last edited by syncmaster; 10-18-01 at 02:56 PM.

  17. #17
    Pro Tech syncmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Greece - Europe - Planet Earth..
    Posts
    2,389
    Thread closed

    Tommorow i am ordering a very spesial switching Hub 10/100 8 ports ..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •