[NTLUG:Discuss] File transfer speeds

[Rick Matthews]

> The wires are CAT5e that I terminated myself (the
> cables in question are about 6ft long each).

Terminating your own cat5 cables is something that most would rather
avoid. When I finally got around to doing it, I found out the hard
way that a cable can be correct from a pin to pin standpoint, but
totally wrong from a noise standpoint. I never guessed that it was
important how you allocated the twisted pairs; I thought pin to pin
correctness was enough.

If that last paragraph is puzzling to you, you might want to try a
couple of "store-bought" cables and see if it makes a difference.

Rick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-admin at ntlug.org]On Behalf
> Of Courtney Grimland
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 4:24 AM
> To: discuss at ntlug.org
> Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] File transfer speeds
> 
> 
> Well, let me add some more info about the 'test' I did to come up with
> those numbers.  The switch is a TRENDnet TE100-S55E 10/100 5-port
> *switch* (not a hub).  The wires are CAT5e that I terminated myself (the
> cables in question are about 6ft long each).  The windows box has 384MB
> RAM (256+128...I know it's an odd number), with nothing but systray and
> explorer running (I'm very anal about useless processes running!).  The
> Linux box has 320MB of RAM (256+64).  The revealing thing is that the
> file transfer was via WinSCP to the sshd daemon on the Linux box.  I
> realize there is overhead for the encryption/decryption, but still, the
> 500Kb/s seemed rather poor.  There was no other traffic on the network
> at the time of the 'test'.  I don't have a FTP server set up on the
> Linux box, but I'll try that or maybe the other suggestions I read on
> this thread.
> 
> Thanks for the input everyone.
> 
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:28:06 -0500 (CDT)
> Bug Hunter <bughuntr at one.ctelcom.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >  oops! I read the 500Kbps wrong.  If he is only getting 50,000 bytes
> >  per
> > second, then that is poor even for a 10BaseT, which will run at
> > 500,000 Bytes per second on a loaded network.
> > 
> >  That performance is so poor that it sounds like really bad wires or a
> > Microsoft machine. :)
> > 
> >   Seriously, transceivers on network cards, or very bad cables have
> >   caused
> > this in the past.  Sometimes it is a windows machine running with too
> > many processes and too little ram.
> > 
> > bug
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nuclear weapons will wipe out all life on earth, if used properly.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>