Good gigabit network card

[stevech]

Ok, increased my TCP window size to 70KB and iperf shows speeds around 910Mbits/s. The problem remains when I try to copy files, speeds are still around 240Mbits/s.

HDD tests show that HDDs shouldn't be a problem. Up to 100MB/s.

File Transfers have the overhead of the file system and sharing. That's fairly dependent on CPU speed - due to inefficient code in Windows. Also CPU speed affects the basic LAN speed due to CPU processing of the TCP/IP stack. This assumes no WiFi.

I believe that from Windows XP SP2 and later, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack window size is adjusted automatically based on NIC speed and assuming terrestrial WANs (not satellite).
------------------------------------------------

Crib Sheet

Megabits per second = Mbps
Megabytes per second = MBps
Megabytes per second = Megabits per second divided by 8
Megibits per second = Megabytes per second multiplied by 8

 

[Migelo]

After changing TCP window on both machines (http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune/OStune/winxp/winxp_stepbystep.html) I got fairly decent speeds from server to PC, 60MB/s but still just 30MB/s from PC to server.

So I started to suspect that RAID5 is causing the problems. I fired up HD Tune again and found out that I was testing READ speeds before (I was confident it's NIC's problem). So I wiped the partition and ran a WRITE test, achieving only 6.1 MB/s average.



This sucks!

 

[00Roush]

First up I would not recommend messing with your tcp window sizes. As stevech mentioned Windows XP and later all auto tune the tcp window sizes. In practice I have typically seen (using Microsoft Network Monitor) Windows use tcp window sizes of 60k-64k when doing large file transfers. Which is large enough to sustain 900+ Mbps of throughput on a low latency LAN. In your case 70K gave you 900+ Mbps so your network seems to be working just fine. Your bottleneck probably lies somewhere else.

Based on your HD Tune results it sounds like you probably found your bottleneck. Are you using Windows to create the RAID 5 or some onboard RAID software? For a while I was testing using the built in software RAID 5 in Windows Server 2008... it sucked too. After I installed the latest RAID drivers for my onboard RAID (AMD 890GX) I was seeing 200+ MB/sec read and about 130 MB/sec write. Either way you could test using your C drive on both the client and server to see what your performance is.

00Roush

 

[Migelo]

I enabled RAID in BIOS, installed OS on non-raid WD 500GB disk, installed raid drivers and configured RAID5 with nvidia media shield. So the answer is probably : some onboard raid software. I'll look for drivers again, hoping I missed something the last time.

I already tested as you suggested and speeds were around 65 MB/s which isn't optimal but will do.

 

[Migelo]

Ok, followed this really awesome tutorial and now my write speeds are around 70MB/s.

http://forums.storagereview.com/ind...uperb-write-speeds-with-nforce-onboard-raid5/

So since I solved my disk problem we are back to my gigabit switch.

Is this one good enough? http://goo.gl/SYGAd

 

[Jesse B]

Ok, followed this really awesome tutorial and now my write speeds are around 70MB/s.

http://forums.storagereview.com/ind...uperb-write-speeds-with-nforce-onboard-raid5/

So since I solved my disk problem we are back to my gigabit switch.

Is this one good enough? http://goo.gl/SYGAd

That's a very good switch. If you don't need management capabilities, the 1410G-8 will work as well, and save you a few dollars.

 

[Migelo]

Do I need management capabilities with only 3 PCs connected to it. One might be running some game server from time to time, p2p, HD streaming?

 

[stevech]

You don't need switch management.
I have two $30 5 port gigE switches. I really don't think you need to spend gosh, 4 times that. The switch chips are fast, no matter how fancy the packaging.

 

[Jesse B]

Do I need management capabilities with only 3 PCs connected to it. One might be running some game server from time to time, p2p, HD streaming?

Unless you're interested in VLANs, Link Aggregation, or QoS, you don't need management really.

 

[Migelo]

The server is running w/o problems, so is the network.

All I need now are 2x12cm fans that should be as silent as they can. Any suggestions?

 

[00Roush]

The server is running w/o problems, so is the network.

All I need now are 2x12cm fans that should be as silent as they can. Any suggestions?

I have always found Antec fans to be fairly quiet but I think Scythe is the most recommended for quiet fans. This might help... http://www.silentpcreview.com/section12.html

00Roush

 

[Jesse B]

I usually suggest Scythe, but there's other companies out there as well. Antec seem to be good, I've personally had good luck with Cooler Master as well. Xigmatek's seem to have good specs, never had any experience with them.

 

[Migelo]

Sorry for late response. I bought 2 fans from a local store and the hottest drive is running@31°C (it's between two others). Server is audible at night, when the ambient noise is super low. Main noise-maker is the PSU, but I really can't do anything about it. It's still good enough for me.

Thanks you for all your help and see you around.