Very poor network performance with a G4

I have a white & grey G4 (1.25GHz and 256MB) running OS X 10.4.5. It's exhibiting very poor network performance, e.g. it will not FTP files over a LAN at more than about 40KB/second.
Other nodes on the same switch perform fine, as do other ports on the switch. The machine is set to autodetect for speed & duplex, so my question is -- how do I debug this? I've tried swapping network cables already...
Thanks!
Chris

This came down to an incompatibility between the G4 and the Cisco. When the switch is set to force 100Mbit but negotiate duplex, the G4 doesn't like it. Going back to auto speed & duplex fixed the problem...

Similar Messages

Poor network performance with Websockets running on apple device

I am working on an HTML/Javascript running on mobile devices that is communicating with a Qt/C++ application running on a PC. Both the mobile device and the PC are on a local network. The communication between the HTML page (client) and the C++ app (server) is done using Websockets.
The HTML page is a remote control for the C++ application, so it is needed to have a low latency connection between the mobile device and the PC.
When using any non-Apple device as a client, data is sent to a rate between 60 to 120 frames/sec, which is totally acceptable. When using an Apple device, this rate falls to 3-4 frames/sec. I also checked ping times (Websocket implementation, not a ping command from command line). They are acceptable (1-5 ms) for Apple devices as long as the device is not transmitting data. Whenever it transmits data, this ping time raises to 200ms.
Looking from the Javascript side, the Apple devices always send data at a consistent rate of 60 frames/sec, as any other devices do. However, on the server side, only 3 to 4 of these 60 frames are received when the client is an Apple device.
Does anyone have any idea on what can be happening?
Here is my Javascript code :
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
        var wsUri = document.URL.replace("http", "ws");
        var output;
        var websocket;
        function init()
            output = document.getElementById("output");
            wsConnect();
        function wsConnect()
            console.log("Trying connection to " + wsUri);
            try
                output = document.getElementById("output");
                websocket = new WebSocket(wsUri);
                websocket.onopen = function(evt)
                        onOpen(evt)
                websocket.onclose = function(evt)
                        onClose(evt)
                websocket.onmessage = function(evt)
                        onMessage(evt)
                websocket.onerror = function(evt)
                        onError(evt)
            catch (e)
                console.log("Exception " + e.toString());
        function onOpen(evt)
            alert("Connected to " + wsUri);
        function onClose(evt)
            alert("Disconnected");
        function onMessage(evt)
            alert('Received message : ' + evt.data);
        function onError(evt)
            alert("Error : " + evt.toString());
        function doSend(message)
            websocket.send(message);
        window.addEventListener("load", init, false);
</script>
Data is sent from Javascript side using dosend() function.

What version of websocket is your server using? That is pretty much on the bleeding edge of things. It looks like you need to use RFC6455 and iOS6 and it should work fine.
Thanks for the post. I didn't know about websockets. Very interesting.

Very slow network performance with Intel NIC when TCP Large Send Offload is enabled

I have a Windows 2008 server with two NIC's (Intel PRO/1000 PL and Intel PRO/1000 PM), and one virtual external switch connected to each NIC.
With the 01/14/08 network driver, I get very low throughput on both NIC's (~10KB/sec when downloading from my server when it should be around 11MB/sec).
I've found that disabling "TCP Large Send Offload (IPv4)" on the virtual switch and "Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4)" on the physical adapters solves the problem.
Is this a bug in the driver?
Thank you,
Ricardo Costa

2 years later, I was able to get that machine to work with Hyper-V under Windows Server 2008 R2, but only after disabling everything that had anything to do with TCP or IP offloading. I think that I had to turn off 4 settings on one controller,
and 5 settings on the other controller. Once that was done, everything worked flawlessly. It is very apparent that the Virtual Controllers do not properly use many of the features of non-Intel devices (not all Intel devices work either), and
that Hyper-V does not completely uninstall if you remove it.
If you have any problems, start turning off the features that your adapter supports, until it starts working. You'll need to weight the cost of replacing the controller with a fully supported controller, of which there is no list, or using your existing
controller at a capacity lower than it physically supports. This has been an elusive issue with Microsoft's Virtual Server projects since they were first in beta, so don't expect a fix anytime soon.
P.S. For those who don't know, the settings are on the actual device and can be changed in the Device Manager. If you are still having trouble after turning off all the settings, then you will need to replace the controller(s) with a different
make/model.
Bill Bosacker's Blog @ http://www.openSourceC.org/

Very slow network performance - with uploads faster than downloads

I just got new ISP - 100 mbps through a Cat5 line. It checks out when I run ethernet directly to a computer. However, I want a totally wireless network.
I have a Time Capsule attached by ethernet and that is my main network device. I also have two airport Xpress' to extend the network.
I am getting, on average, 16 mbps! And, upload speed is generally higher.
The Time Capsule is about 2 yrs old, but it is an "n" device.
Anybody have any idea what the problem might be? I was considering getting a new extreme and using the Time Capsule as an extender instead of the expresses because, as I understand it, the express has one band only. Would that be better? Mainly, I want to get the speed up to what it should be.
Is there some way to trouble shoot the Time Capsule?
Others in my building with D Link or Linksys routers are getting over 80 mbps wirelessly, so I know it is possible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to stay with Apple products, but if not possible I will get another brand of router.
Thanks,
Deanna

Deannanel wrote:
So, William, I got an Airport Extreme. Within 20 or so feet of it I am now getting 85 to 95 Mbps!
Great!
However, in the far reaches of the house, signal is low and I have not been able to extent network with either the Time Capsule or an Airport Express. They just won't connect.
Based on the earlier numbers you gave me, you won't be able to establish a reliable connection "in the far reaches of the house", as it's too far away from the base router. You'll either have to (1) run Ethernet to that remote unit, (2) use PowerLine units as an Ethernet extender, or (3) put the remote unit closer to the base unit.
I reset the Time Capsule a couple of times. I noticed that both devices are automatically set to channel 157.
That's a 5 GHz channel. That band can give faster throughput, but the signal strength falls off faster than in the 2.4 GHz band.
The Extreme has 2 channels - 2 and 157. I do not have the option of changing the channel on either of the other devices.
That makes sense, if they're configured to extend an existing network. They must communicate on the same channel as the base station they're extending.

Poor Network Performance from VPN sites

We are experiencing poor network performance when connecting from hardware VPN sites. VPN sites have Cisco Hardware VPN client 3002 which terminates to Cisco 3005 VPN concentrator. Geting upload/download speeds of 355/484kbsp from VPN to surewest.com. If I remove the VPN and connect laptop directly to dsl modem, speeds are 3mb up and 1mb down. Any ideas what could be causing this?

Try this
Adjust the MTU and MSS size in concentrator and client.
Try these link for more info:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2284/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008015ce0e.html#1223423
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2286/products_user_guide_chapter09186a00803ef6c5.html

Macbook Pro 11,2 tests very poor WiFi performance compared to iPad

Configuration:
MBP 11,2 running 10.10.1
Airport Express 2014 vintage
WiFi Scanner.app speed test results on MBP range from 1 to 3 Mbps. My iPad Air (or iPad Mini) in the same physical position tests between 18 and 28 Mbps. WiFi Scanner.app shows SNR of 17 to 18 dbm.
The reason I am testing is because I have noticed network performance on the new MBP to be very poor in our current NZ location. In Palo Alto 2 weeks ago the MBP wifi seemed fine - I didn't bother to test.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

Hello .Sup,
Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
To troubleshoot the Wi-Fi performance on your iPad please follow the troubleshooting steps in the article below. Also take a look at the recommended settings for Wi-Fi routers.
iOS: Troubleshooting Wi-Fi networks and connections
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1398
iOS and OS X: Recommended settings for Wi-Fi routers and access points
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4199
Take care,
Alex H.

Poor Bluetooth performance with all aluminum Mac Pro

The all aluminum case for pre-mavericks Mac Pro is the primary reason for poor antenna performance of Bluetooth. Aluminum, being a good conductor, acts as a reflector of EMF forming what is known as a Faraday Cage, essentially trapping emissions within the box. Normally, holes drilled in the case would allow enough EMF to pass through the case but the hole size for transmission is directly proportional to the lowest frequency that will pass through easily. An example is the typical microwave oven where the window is actually a conducting sheet with small enough hole such that higher freq light waves pass easily through the sheet but lower frequency microwaves do not. Perhaps if the drive bay covers were made of plastic, transmission of the Bluetooth and wifi would be sufficient. One might carefully nibble a slot or two in the side door but this would surely invalidate any warranty and care would have to be taken not to get aluminum particles inside the computer. This would probably nullify any FCC approval of the machine due to clocking noise interference with other devices. The best approach would probably be a tuned waveguide that passes frequencies only around 2.4 GHz ~ 5 GHz through the case (very similar to the way tuned ports on audio speakers pass a band of frequencies needed to extend bass response). I'm sure Apple will have corrected this design flaw in the new Mac Pro introduced this year. If you have lots of time on your hands you can get a college level text on electromagnetics (Maxwell's Equations, etc.) and derive all the details but with a bit of experimenting and reading about tin can antenna mods to wireless routers you should be able to improve Bluetooth performance significantly.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to move my wireless home base station. It is on the same desk as my mini so much less than 5 feet away.

Very poor RemoteApp performance

When I run my WPF app locally or over a remote desktop connection (Windows 7 x64), the application runs smoothly with no performance issue. When I deploy the same WPF application to a MS 2008 Server R1 as a RemoteApp, the performance degrades
dramatically. The app becomes very sluggish and lags with every keystroke. Each action takes 10 to 30 seconds. During the freezes/slow down period, the CPU usage of the process running on the server spikes and pin the core (it is
a quad core CPU) at 100% for the duration. At the same time I observe no other process that is consuming any significant CPU or network activity.
Additional information:
The WPF application is a striped down testing harness containing only several RadRichTextBox controls with no business logic
The connection between my computer and the terminal server is over a gigabit LAN so network traffic is not an issue.
I run the application in maximize mode, which is 1680x1050 at 32bits color. I use the same resolution for the remote desktop connection test and it performs smoothly.
What can cause such a discrepancy in performance?
Paul Chan

Hello,
Thank you for your question.
I am trying to involve someone familiar with this topic to further look at this issue. There might be some time delay. Appreciate your patience.
Thank you for your understanding and support.
Technology changes life……

Extremly poor network performance

Hello all. First time post, please excuse any annoyances.
I'm using a WRT300N Wireless-N Broadband Router connecting three (sometimes four) computers. Two wired and one (sometimes two) wireless, using 802.11G.
After a long period of time or after a short period of extremely high use (usually bit-torrenting assorted files) my network performance crawls to a near stop. My laptop will show an "excellent" connection but the speed will be 1 Mbps. The wired computers still show a connection of 100 Mbps but cannot connect to anything, including the router (using the web configure site). All connections time out. This happens to all the computers connected at the time and the only cure I've found thus far is to restart the router and or modem. If you need any more information please ask. Below is the information of my router, computers hooked to the router, and the network connection coming in.
Connection coming in the house:
Comcast Cable. 6 Meg connection (download)
Router:
WRT300N Wireless-N Broadband Router
Using the latest firmware (0.93.3)
Using DHCP, Laptop1 and Desktop1 have reservations.
Laptop1:
Broadcom internal wireless 'card' running 802.11G
Desktop 1:
Intel NIC
Desktop 2:
Asus motherboard onboard NIC
(occasional) Laptop2:
Dell external wireless card running 802.11G

I must apologize for one annoyance... the whole post. I skipped step one of posting by forgetting to use that handy-dandy "Search" box located just above this whole post deal, I apologize again. I've found (after searching) that this problem is actually quite common with the 300N and I assume it's a firmware issue, I then assume that Linksys is working day and night, sweating behind a monitor, sleepless and hungry because all they are doing is trying to resolve this issue... then again... you know what they say about 'assuming''.

Poor network performance in busy areas of San Francisco

Verizon LTE coverage seems to be very poor in certain parts of San Francisco. The connection seems ok at 2 or 3 bars on 4g, but data connections are very slow. In particular along 18th street between Church and Castro, and Castro Street from Market to 20th, and finally the North East side of Corona Heights park. I have a Galaxy S5, I've tried resetting a few times. Also, I've been walking with others on verizon that have the same issue, as well as people on other carriers that didn't. Any hope of seeing better coverage in the near future in those areas? There are several people considering switching over this.

Post a URL so we can test the page.
My "guess" is that Flash is the video format and Snow Leopard (10.6) actually installs an "out of date" version (fixed with the 10.6.1 update).
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
Test your install at the link above.

Very Slow SMB Performance with DroboShare

Hi there,
We have a big issue with a DroboShare NAS device connected to a Drobo Drive (FAT32):
If we connect to our DroboShare NAS directly via LAN, the performance with SMB is terrible. Browsing folders takes minutes until the contents (15 items) are shown, opening and saving files takes minutes.
If we connect the Drobo via USB to one of our Macs and then share it via SMB, it is fast as ****.
Problem is that we cannot leave it this way, as we only have portable macs, so if they are removed, nobody can access the Drobo.
The problem nevertheless seems to be restricted to Macs: If we connect to the DroboShare with Linux or Windows Boxes, everything is as fast as expected.
Does anyone has similar issues with weak performance and/or knows how this can improved?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Simon

I just ported netatalk (AFP) over to the DroboShare.
http://code.google.com/p/drobocapsule/

Lenovo W540 poor network performance

My company recently purchased a Lenovo W540 (Intel i7-4700MQ @ 2.4 Ghz, 16 GB RAM, Windows 8.1 pro 64-bit) for me to use when I am working remote. I have to say that this thing has been an albatross from day one. While it generally performs poorly, the wifi is the worst I have ever experienced. The W540 can only hit a fraction of the network speeds of my 4-year-old Dell Latitude E6400 (1.1 Mbps compared to 2.7 Mpbs on average). The connectivity is very unreliable and I am constantly losing my VPN and VoIP connections.
I have updated all of the drivers available from Lenovo and Intel as well as removed most of the bloatware pre-installed from Lenovo. Prior to doing so I could only manage .6 Mbps on a good day - using my tethered 3G phone was faster and more reliable.
I have contacted support twice to gain assistance. Their best offer was to have me drive an hour to the nearest service center for support.
I am at my wit's end and would appreciate any assistance you can offer before I send this back to Lenovo along with a jar of vasaline.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Try uninstalling the wifi drivers from device manager before re-installing the latest version. My Intel 6300 card was sticking at 54mbps the other day too, and this seemed to fix it.
W520: i7-2720QM, Q2000M at 1080/688/1376, 21GB RAM, 500GB + 750GB HDD, FHD screen
X61T: L7500, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, XGA screen, Ultrabase
Y3P: 5Y70, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, QHD+ screen

Extremely Slow Network Performance with 10.5.8

Let me start off by saying I don't use my mac mini much at all but when I do, the network is incredibly slow and unbearable. Half of the pages don't load, ipsw files for the iPhone take 20-30 minutes (with 15mbps interwebs)
My network setup:
1. Modem (provided by ISP)
2. 2 TB Time Capsule WPA2 security default settings.
3. Airport Connection
Now I would be for using 'openDNS' for a resolution but it didn't really improve the issue. Sure it sped up the internet on that machine, but I'm not willing to use a third party DNS when my MacbookPro connecting to the same exact network, doesn't experience this.
I have removed the hosts file for airport, remove the network connection, reset SMC, to no avail.
If anybody has any insight as to why my mac mini is the only device with poor performance, that would be greatly appreciated.

I shouldn't have to use another user.
Okay. It should also work with your current user but it's not.
For testing purposes and to narrow down the problem, try another user and see if it works.
If it works, it is something with the current user.
If it doesn't work, it is something with the system.

SOLVED:Poor networking performance (Slow site lookup)

I am dual booting with Windoze on the same machine. Websurfing performance on Arch is poor, and I can't figure out why. Windoze surfing with Firefox is instantaneous, whereas on Arch, I get "looking up http:www.google.com....................." for a good 5 seconds, sometimes 10 or 20 seconds, or more.
It will be fine for a few minutes, and then I get pretty bad stalls like that quite often.
Heres my rc.conf networking section:
lo="lo 127.0.0.1"
eth0="dhcp"
INTERFACES=(lo eth0)
# Routes to start at boot-up (in this order)
# Declare each route then list in ROUTES
# - prefix an entry in ROUTES with a ! to disable it
gateway="default gw 192.168.0.1"
ROUTES=(!gateway)
And my daemons:
DAEMONS=(@syslog-ng @hal @network @netfs @crond @alsa @fam @portmap kdm)
Any ideas?

lucke wrote:
Sometimes ipv6 causes problem.
You might try adding "alias net-pf-10 off" to /etc/modprobe.conf.
Tried this, and it did not work. Same lag when "looking up" sights.
High|ander wrote:Try to use your ISP:s DNS (better then letting your router redirect every DNS request)
Snarkout wrote:I'd add those entries to resolv.conf and see what shakes loose -
ralvez wrote:I concur with Snarkout.
The way I have it set up in my system, and works like a charm, is that I have the nameserver set in the router and in my system.
Ok, this seems to have worked. I plugged the DNS ip entries into the router and my resolv.conf, but DHCPD rewrites the resolv.conf on each reboot. I will consult the wiki to correct that, but even with just the DNS info in the router alone, I tried it out for a good 10 minutes and it was zippy fast, just like Windoze and PCLinuxOS (on my other HD).
I will wait a day before renaming the thread as "SOLVED", so I can test ouit the results more thoroughly.
Now, can anyone explain why it works fast under Windoze and PCLinuxOS, but Arch needs the DNS settings? Or is it just one of those weird unexplainable things?
I am using a D-Link router, if it matters. (IIRC, some routers actually use Linux.)
:shock:

Hyper-V Windows 2012 r2 Poor network performance

Hi,
Since that I installed Windows 2012 R2 and Hyper-v, I notice that is very slow performing copy operations from the VMs to the physical machine (appears to be lock to 10MB). Firs I though that this issue was only between the VMs and the parent OS, now I realized
that when copying between this Hyper-v physical host and another physical host in the same subnet I also get only 10MB of speed.
How do I unlock this 10MB limit??
The switch and all NICs are GIGABIT capable and before using Windows 2012 r2, using the same hardware boxes I was doing 400MB of transfers between physical hosts and VMs??!!
Thank you.

I had the exact same issue with the same AR8151 NIC on my Alienware, only I'm running Windows 8.1.
I have a VM with both an external (to the AR8151) and an internal NIC which serves as both a domain controller and router (RRAS) for my other VMs (which only have Internal interfaces). There is no VMQ setting on the adapter, and I messed around with
the offload/RSS settings, but performance would drop whenever this VM would be running. (Internet speed test would go from 95Mbps downstream to about 24Mbps.). When I paused or shut down the VM, performance would return to normal.
I found the issue to be an errant entry in my route table which I have no idea how it happened. A second default route was created which used the internal IP of the VM with a lower metric. Simply deleting the route corrected the performance issue.
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0      10.10.1.200        10.10.2.1
5
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0      192.168.1.1    192.168.1.131     10
        10.10.0.0      255.255.0.0         On-link         10.10.2.1    261
        10.10.0.0      255.255.0.0    192.168.1.200    192.168.1.131     11

Very poor network performance with a G4

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for