Creative Audigy!!

[dZeus]

http://www.dumeter.com/

you should be able to get at least 8MBps (64Mbit) from memory cache over the network (to null device), and with the ftp over tcp/ip protocoll you should be able to get transfer rates of data up to 11Mbps (88Mbps), which is around the max for 100Mbps ethernet, since there also is overhead

the DU meter is good for troubleshooting when there's a problem, but it's not the most accurate way of measuring speeds. If you really want to measure something correctly, I would download something through ftp from one pc to the other, to the null device and from cache (make sure there's plenty of ram in the pc which runs the ftp server, and transfer the same file a couple of times after another, to make sure it reads from cache, which can be verified when the hd led stays off on the server ). The client's hd led also shouldn't light up when downloading to the null device

the ftp server software should report the average transfer speed achieved. You also shouldn't download small files, since the smaller the file, the more inaccurate the result. Try a single file around 50 - 150 MB (as large as possible while still being loaded from diskcache on the server).

[Wombat]

You definitely have something wrong, and it's <B>not</B> the fact that you're using 100base.

1) Are you sure you're running at 100Mbit? You could be at 10.
2) Have one machine ping the hell out of the other. Let's see low/high/avg ping numbers. Look for packet loss. Either of these can be signs of a crappy cable.
3) Make sure your drivers are properly installed, and that bus mastering works on both machines. Also, if you're trying to xfer while you play music or otherwise hog the PCI bus, you can expect serious hits to throughput.
4) How are the HD's set up? IDE? What channels? MB or PCI card?


P.S. MCSE doesn't mean much.

[cbman]

Originally posted by Wombat


P.S. MCSE doesn't mean much.

Damn Straight... there are some really smart and knowledgeable ones out there... but for every good one there are hordes of shadetree PC Mechaniks with all them thar quantifications and duhgrees.

Their mistakes are what generate half the work that comes into the shop

[Archeon]

Originally posted by Wombat
You definitely have something wrong, and it's <B>not</B> the fact that you're using 100base.

1) Are you sure you're running at 100Mbit? You could be at 10.
2) Have one machine ping the hell out of the other. Let's see low/high/avg ping numbers. Look for packet loss. Either of these can be signs of a crappy cable.
3) Make sure your drivers are properly installed, and that bus mastering works on both machines. Also, if you're trying to xfer while you play music or otherwise hog the PCI bus, you can expect serious hits to throughput.
4) How are the HD's set up? IDE? What channels? MB or PCI card?


P.S. MCSE doesn't mean much.

Turst me, I've noticed this too, but I though when it came to putting up the simplest TCP/IP network there is he would be knowledgable.

allrite.
1) I've checked that. Both cards are running at 100 full duplex.
I've checked again today : I've copied 1.16gig worth of files from the first pc to the second. All files were at least 70megs or bigger. This took +/- 11 minutes (I've timed it this time).
According to my calculation this should take no more than 2 minutes on 100base-T (1.16gig x 1024 /10mb/s (approx) /60 = +/- 2 minutes). So what am I doing wrong here????

2) When I ping the other machine I get :

answer 192.168.0.2 bytes=32 time <10ms TTL=128
Packages sent = packages received. Loss = none
Min, max, average is always 0ms.

3) Drivers are properly installed and they're the latest drivers available from the 3com website. How can I check this bus mastering? I might have done that but I don't know for sure. Is that the same as the Intel UDMA drivers? I know for sure that I didn't install those because lots of people seemed to have problems with them. Do they really make that much difference?
I did install the latest i815 drivers. (from the Intel website)
I'm not doing anything else with the machine whilst it's copying the files, so I'm not hogging it.

4) HD's are two maxtor 60gig 7200RPM. Both on primary IDE (on motherboard). Motherboard is an Asus TUSL2 with a 1Ghz CPU (same in both machines)

I'm my system really is inproperly configured and you guys could show me a way to work it out I would be really grateful.

Thx!

[Wombat]

Hmm. You're getting to the point where I'm stumped, almost.

What kind of transfers? Does a straight FTP get this kind of throughput?

And if you're still completely stuck, try half-duplex.

[MultimediaMan]

Pinging with 32 or 64 bytes of data in a packet is pretty meaningless...about all it is good for is seeing if there something alive at the other end of the connection. You may want to weight the packets to check for instability or a bad NIC.

Try the following arguments:

ping <IPaddyofyourchoice> -l 1024 -n 50

The -l switch allows you to specify the packet size, the -n switch allows you to specify how many pings to send. I like to cxontrol how many pings I send, because interrupting a continuous ping cycle can result in a false lost packet. Windows defaults to five pings, but oftentimes more is required to get an accurate picture of what is going on.

In *nix the same argument would look like this:
ping <IPaddyofyourchoice> 1024 50

You can set the packet size all the way up to 8188 bytes.

This will stress your NIC: any packet loss with larger packets points to a hardware or memory problem.

Also, if you are running a hub (not a switch), forcing half duplex (Send and Listen) is not a bad idea at all, and on a hub, it is the only type of communication supported.

Speaking of hubs or switches, you may want to check your switch or hub: move your devices around on the ports of the device to see if there isn't a problem there, and make sure the ports on your switch are set to the proper speed and communication type.

Crossover cables can be a source of woe, particularly home grown or locally made cables. Technically, Crossover cables can be no longer than two meters, and if your a/b pairs are wired incorrectly, a LOT of crosstalk can occur, and that can put things in the shitter in a hurry.

Looking at your hub's lights can be informative: are you getting network activity when nothing is going on? Does your Collision light look like a connection light? If so, check cabling, or again, start looking for a bad piece of hardware.

Win98/Win98SE has a problem with it's TCP/IP stack...you may want to look for the Packet Resend Timing Patch over at Microsoft to correct a math error with how Win98/Win98SE resolves a collision. (If you can't find it, I've got it.)

There is a similar upstream patch for Win98SE machines that use ICS also.

[Archeon]

Wombat :

Pardon me is this seems a stupid question, but how can I do that, a straight FTP ?
As I've said before, I'm not that knowledgeable when it comes to networking.

I've tried half-duplex. Same difference. If anything, it was even a tad slower.

Multimediaman :

I've tried pinging with the parameters you provided, this is the result :
pinging to 192.168.0.2 with 1024 byte data:
answer of 192.168.0.2 : bytes=1024 time <10ms TTL=128
(50times)
ping statistics for 192.168.0.2 :
packages sent =50, packages recieves = 50, loss = 0
Min, max, average, all 0

So no difference there I believe?

Also, I'm not using a hub, and I doubt my crossover cable is bad. Sure, it home made (150cm), but I've already replaced it with a factory made one and it made no difference.

i've searched for those patches you mention, but I can't seem to find them.

One thing I may need to add : the first system is a win2000 system, the other one runs win '98SE. But this shouldn't make any difference, right?

If anyone has any idea what may be causing this, I'll be VERY happy to hear it!

Thx!

[Wombat]

No, the system differences could be an issue. I asked you to try ftp because I am starting to think this is a software issue. The two systems may not have come up with a very good protocol to talk to each other.

Try this:
Install an ftp server, like bisonftp (try looking it up in google) on one machine. Get it started. Log on from the other machine "ftp xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx". See how fast your transfers are. ftp over TCP/IP should be pretty fast.

If this <I>is</I> faster, then:
1) Uhhh, I guess I found you a work-around.
2) Get one of the W2K experts in here, like Gurm or Rags.

[Archeon]

OK, I'll give that a try and get back to you, it won't be today 'cause I haven't got the time now.

Maybe I should've used netbeui instead!

Thx!

[Archeon]

Wombat :

Ok, I've tried what you've suggested.

I installed bisonFTP. Ftp'd to it (strangely this only worked when my connection to the internet was also active - don't know if I liked that too much)

Result? Same. Took AGAIN 14 minutes for that exact same map of 1.16gigs to be copied from one machine to the other.

So that didn't work either. Any more suggestions?
Damn! I hate when this happens. And my system is very straightforward otherwise. No weird apps installed, only very basic installs of '2000 and '98SE on PC's with quality parts. I'm getting desperate here!

[ALBPM]

I just got my Audigy Platinum last night but got home from work too late to install it. hopefully tonight or tomorrow I'll get it going.

Looks impressive and it will be nice having all those connections on the front of my system instead of the back.

Now I have an excuse to get a camcorder....LOL

Paul

[Rakido]

Archeon,

does it make a difference, if you

- push the mp3's from computer A to computer B (meaning you work in the filemanager of computer A) or
- get the mp3' from computer A to B (meaning you work in the filemanager of computer B)?

Because that's one of the mysteries i have in my network. Pushing from computer A to the B is extremely slower than getting from A to B.

[Edit]: there are a couple of suggestions to different network problems on http://www.911networks.com/. Select Networks on the left side, than 'slow network'


Rakido

[ALBPM]

Install was easy and it does sound better especially noticable in games.

What I didn't realize is there is no support for the 1394 connection in plain old WN98...DOH!!!

There's a reason to upgrade....LOL

Paul

[ALBPM]

Ok?????? It appears to be working with WN98

Why does the 1394 show as installed and working????


I wish I had a camcorder to check this out

Paul

[Wombat]

Do you need to install a network controller or protocol? Windows is strange about "TCP/IP for Dial-Up" and wanting to reinstall TCP/IP if you want it for your ethernet card too. Maybe this is that kind of situation.