AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HELP! I Only get 11MB/sec transfer speeds to and from my WHS2011 media server. What should I do ??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HELP! I Only get 11MB/sec transfer speeds to and from my WHS2011 media server. What should I... - Page 2

post #31 of 77
7/12/12 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

So your saying my internet would be faster?
Or the network speed from say the Desktop to the server ???

You reduce the risk of your router getting overloaded and reducing the throughput both internally and in in the internet connection (and incidentally in your router overheating).

If it's not overloaded, then it's not going to increase the speed. But you reduce the risk of it becoming overloaded and reducing the speed.

As I said, switches are cheap.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 77
7/12/12 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

You reduce the risk of your router getting overloaded and reducing the throughput both internally and in in the internet connection (and incidentally in your router overheating).
If it's not overloaded, then it's not going to increase the speed. But you reduce the risk of it becoming overloaded and reducing the speed.
As I said, switches are cheap.

Thanks, still not fully understanding till below
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I thought the router still has to "route" the dhcp reservations to the switch and manage all the DNS handshakes. What am I missing that makes a {router->switch} more preferable?

I really just needed to see this picture to get it

470

Only helps for Local traffic. I suppose I'm doing a fair amount of that, but then I fear installing a switch will knock out my wireless bridge
Edited by Dark_Slayer - 7/12/12 at 1:58pm
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 77
7/12/12 at 2:00pm
I want my computer connected directly to the router. I've never felt it be hot at all.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 77
7/12/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

I want my computer connected directly to the router.

Why?

It doesn't improve your throughput over connecting it to a separate switch.

You realize that what you're connecting to isn't the "router" but to a switch built in to the router.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 77
7/12/12 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I suppose I'm doing a fair amount of that, but then I fear installing a switch will knock out my wireless bridge


Why would you fear that?

You could connect that bridge anywhere in your network. To the router's switch. To a separate switch. To a switch at the end of a cable run that is in turn connected to a separate switch that is connected to the router's switch.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 77
7/12/12 at 3:02pm
Mfusik, you could do as I do and run your "router" as a virtual machine... dedicate two NICs to the VM and you are off to the races. You get a really top-notch firewall and the ability to do much more with your "router".

Depending on your hypervisor of choice, I'd suggest IPFire if you go with a KVM hypervisor (like Proxmox). If you prefer Microsoft's Hyper-V then I suggest Zentyal running on Ubuntu. I can explain how it all works if you're interested.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 77
7/12/12 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha View Post

Mfusik, you could do as I do and run your "router" as a virtual machine... dedicate two NICs to the VM and you are off to the races. You get a really top-notch firewall and the ability to do much more with your "router".
Depending on your hypervisor of choice, I'd suggest IPFire if you go with a KVM hypervisor (like Proxmox). If you prefer Microsoft's Hyper-V then I suggest Zentyal running on Ubuntu. I can explain how it all works if you're interested.
I have thought about this before... Only problem is sometimes it is "nice" to have a router (internet access, dhcp, etc) when you are doing maintenance/upgrades on the server. For other clients and the server itself.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 77
7/12/12 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Why?
It doesn't improve your throughput over connecting it to a separate switch.
You realize that what you're connecting to isn't the "router" but to a switch built in to the router.

Just one less switch to give me issues, that's all. I know it isn't any faster but it is more "fail safe".
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 77
7/12/12 at 4:03pm
Get a Gigabit router that supports 9KB jumbo frame rates, and make sure your NIC cards can support jumbo frame rates. On my FreeNAS server transfer rates range from 77-84 MB/sec
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 77
7/12/12 at 4:27pm
After being in the networking business since 1995, here is my recommendation for a home network:

Internet
|
|
Home wireless router
|
|
8 or 12 or 24 port gigabit switch (this is called the backbone switch)
|
|
all wired connections (PCs, Servers, more gigabit switches, wireless access points) all connected as home runs to the backbone switch

This way there is no bottleneck in the local LAN, and only the Home wireless router is the limiting factor going to the Internet.

If you need to prioritize the type of traffic going to/from the Internet, you can use the QOS setting on the Home wireless router to give gaming or IP phone traffic higher priority.

You can also add a separate firewall between the Home wireless router and the backbone switch (which I do).
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 77
7/12/12 at 4:35pm
The wireless router was just something that came on my gigabit router. It only gets used to connect my android and wife's iPhone to the internet. I'm pretty sure that those devices are their own bottleneck.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 77
7/12/12 at 4:45pm
470

This is how I have all my stuff setup. From the gigabit switch I have CAT cable going to all my rooms including my living room HTPC and bedroom HTPC. The server is also connected to the Gigabit switch and sits right beside it in the garage.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 77
7/12/12 at 5:01pm
I've got three switches "downstream" from the fisrt switch just "down stream" from the switch on the router. These switches are in the family room, loft and printers / 80486(don't ask) work machine (this is a "fast ethernet" 10/100 switch)
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 77
7/12/12 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfett View Post

Get a Gigabit router that supports 9KB jumbo frame rates, and make sure your NIC cards can support jumbo frame rates. On my FreeNAS server transfer rates range from 77-84 MB/sec

You would also have to make sure your switches support jumbo frames. I have jumbo frame support on all my equipment and i see no improvement in speed.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 77
7/12/12 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Just one less switch to give me issues, that's all. I know it isn't any faster but it is more "fail safe".

I don't see how it's more fail safe by plugging it into the router's switch. Swtches are one of the least likely to fail items there is, and by reducing the load on your router it likely makes it more fail safe to use the separate switch, not less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceD View Post

After being in the networking business since 1995, here is my recommendation for a home network:
Internet
|
|
Home wireless router
|
|
8 or 12 or 24 port gigabit switch (this is called the backbone switch)
|
|
all wired connections (PCs, Servers, more gigabit switches, wireless access points) all connected as home runs to the backbone switch
This way there is no bottleneck in the local LAN, and only the Home wireless router is the limiting factor going to the Internet.
If you need to prioritize the type of traffic going to/from the Internet, you can use the QOS setting on the Home wireless router to give gaming or IP phone traffic higher priority.
You can also add a separate firewall between the Home wireless router and the backbone switch (which I do).

You put your home wireless network outside your firewall? Why would you do that? I've set up seperate guest wireless access outside the firewall, but I want my own wireless network protected just as much as my wired network. I'd put the secuity appliance between the modem and the router.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 77
7/12/12 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanM View Post

I have thought about this before... Only problem is sometimes it is "nice" to have a router (internet access, dhcp, etc) when you are doing maintenance/upgrades on the server. For other clients and the server itself.

Maintenance/Upgrades? Your Hypervisor level OS doesn't really need to be maintained as much as a "production" server. Your production servers (router distro, WHS, Win7 tuner farm, Google Voice/Asterisk home phone, etc.) are all VMs. You maintain those server VMs as you need to... you can even clone them and stick them on private networks to keep everything up and running while you work on or tweak the original. The hypervisor level OS doesn't ever need to go down unless you have some hardware you want to throw in there, or you have an extended power outage. I highly suggest a little UPS unit on it.

The ability to build a virtual environment to test a new application or solution is extremely valuable, especially in a household where they depend on everything "just working". You can play around in your virtual world before implementing changes in the production environment, and does wonders for the WAF when you have uptimes of months instead of days because you have to "reboot" again.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 77
7/12/12 at 10:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceD View Post

If you need to prioritize the type of traffic going to/from the Internet, you can use the QOS setting on the Home wireless router to give gaming or IP phone traffic higher priority.

QOS doesn't work over the internet.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 77
7/12/12 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha View Post

Maintenance/Upgrades? Your Hypervisor level OS doesn't really need to be maintained as much as a "production" server. Your production servers (router distro, WHS, Win7 tuner farm, Google Voice/Asterisk home phone, etc.) are all VMs. You maintain those server VMs as you need to... you can even clone them and stick them on private networks to keep everything up and running while you work on or tweak the original. The hypervisor level OS doesn't ever need to go down unless you have some hardware you want to throw in there, or you have an extended power outage. I highly suggest a little UPS unit on it.
The ability to build a virtual environment to test a new application or solution is extremely valuable, especially in a household where they depend on everything "just working". You can play around in your virtual world before implementing changes in the production environment, and does wonders for the WAF when you have uptimes of months instead of days because you have to "reboot" again.
I was talking about hardware changes, where powering down the physical machine is a requirement...
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 77
7/12/12 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanM View Post

I was talking about hardware changes, where powering down the physical machine is a requirement...

Understood, but how often do you do this? How often do you change the hardware in your server?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 77
7/13/12 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha View Post

Understood, but how often do you do this? How often do you change the hardware in your server?
Often enough that I still want a functioning router when I do. Most of my hardware upgrades tend to be in the spring. This spring it was SSD. And then later the addition of an e-sata card. Twice a year I remove then re-add the Ceton card. Last year upgrade to Sandy Bridge. And then there is the odd hard drive reconfiguration/addition (not lately b/c HDD prices are too high).

I'm sure there are plenty of advantages of a sw based router config, but if you already have a working reliable router, then it is hard to imagine switching.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 77
7/13/12 at 7:01am
Speaking of software-based routers. Anybody remember running Internet Connection Sharing under Windows 98?? Good times...

Officially off-topic now and I'll stop... I promise...
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 77
7/13/12 at 7:20am
I got tired of buying soho wifi routers as they would die on me at the most inconvenient times. Though admittedly, I buy cheap ones. They tend to overheat and the wireless radio burns up. Plus a software router disto will give you many more features than you can find on your typical soho router. I do keep an old one on standby if something happens to the VM server or the VM. I haven't had to take my VM server down in months.

As for internet connection sharing, I'm actually testing running a server 2008 VM using the built in RRAS, DNS, and windows firewall. Functionally for the basics, it works just as well as a Linux based router/firewall. I know the prevailing wisdom is to avoid windows for this purpose due the larger attack vectors available against window OSes... But honestly it seems to work very well for a basic router/firewall if you are smart about what you expose. Running windows as a router/firewall does require more regular maintenance though.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 77
7/13/12 at 8:25am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

470
This is how I have all my stuff setup. From the gigabit switch I have CAT cable going to all my rooms including my living room HTPC and bedroom HTPC. The server is also connected to the Gigabit switch and sits right beside it in the garage.

This is how I have mine set up now. I just need another switch.

Any reason I could not do this:

Cable wire to cable modem.
Cable modem to Router.
Router to switch #1.
Router to Switch #2

Switch #1 to server, HTPC and Desktop
Switch #2 to AVR, Bluray, Tivo, Xbox

laptops, Iphones and other devices all wireless.

Would the laptop not have server access???
Edited by Mfusick - 7/13/12 at 10:18am
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 77
7/13/12 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

This is how I have mine set up now. I just need another switch.
Any reason I could not do this:
Cable wire to cable modem.
Cable modem to Router.

That's what you have to do to have wired internet.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 77
7/13/12 at 8:37am
More correctly,

Shielded RG6 from demarcation to Cable Modem
Shielded Cat 6 from Cable Modem to Router.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 77
7/13/12 at 9:57am
This might have been mentioned, but a good tip: if you are ever connecting a gigabit switch to another gigabit switch, you need to use a crossover cable. Otherwise you'll just get 10/100. At least this has been my experience.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 77
7/13/12 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

This might have been mentioned, but a good tip: if you are ever connecting a gigabit switch to another gigabit switch, you need to use a crossover cable. Otherwise you'll just get 10/100. At least this has been my experience.
Not my experience. It was more likely the quality of the cables you tried, not whether they were cross-over or not. It definitely matters -- you really need cat6 cables, unless you get lucky with a good cat5e cable. Devices these days automatically detect when cross-over is needed.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 77
7/13/12 at 10:11am
I don't have problems streaming from my PC to my HTPC using Cat5e over gig LAN. I'd use Cat6 but that would require re-working something my son and I installed years ago.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 77
7/13/12 at 10:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

That's what you have to do to have wired internet.

No.

You missed my post. I edited it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

470
This is how I have all my stuff setup. From the gigabit switch I have CAT cable going to all my rooms including my living room HTPC and bedroom HTPC. The server is also connected to the Gigabit switch and sits right beside it in the garage.

This is how I have mine set up now. I just need another switch.

Any reason I could not do this:

Cable wire to cable modem.
Cable modem to Router.
Router to switch #1.
Router to Switch #2

Switch #1 to server, HTPC and Desktop
Switch #2 to AVR, Bluray, Tivo, Xbox

laptops, Iphones and other devices all wireless.

Would the laptop not have server access???
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 77
7/13/12 at 10:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No.
You missed my post. I edited it.
This is how I have mine set up now. I just need another switch.
Any reason I could not do this:
Cable wire to cable modem.
Cable modem to Router.
Router to switch #1.
Router to Switch #2
Switch #1 to server, HTPC and Desktop
Switch #2 to AVR, Bluray, Tivo, Xbox
laptops, Iphones and other devices all wireless.
Would the laptop not have server access???


Specifically,

Asking it it's just better to run everything off a new router I buy that has 10/100/1000 speed and run a single cord from router to the switch I already own in my AVR closet in the bedroom.

Everything else would hook directly to the new router- with wires. (Desktop and server)

Issue is I need about 4 internet connections in my AVR closet, including a HTPC but I only have a single wire running to it.

The wire is run under the floor in the basement, which is finished with a drop ceiling.
Not that I could not run four more cables but it's not something I desire to do. It's an all day project that will frustrate me.


Currently - My set up was the router ran a wire to the AVR closet into a switch- then hooked all the stuff up to that switch.

ZON2020 it telling me I should do another switch- so just wondering if that is better to add a switch and use two of them- or if I should just get a new router.

My concern- is if the HTPC is into the router # 2 in AVR closet will it have full access and speed to the server running on #2 switch ???
Edited by Mfusick - 7/13/12 at 10:26am
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HELP! I Only get 11MB/sec transfer speeds to and from my WHS2011 media server. What should I do ??