WRT300N slow throughput
I just upgraded to a WRT300N router and WMP300N adapter. After spending the last several days tweaking settings and talking with linksys support I have only been able to get my WLAN to LAN throughput up to about 15Mb/s. My test setup is quite basic. I have a cable modem, wireless PC, and wired NAS device as the only things connected to the router.
This is using a mixed network mode and 40 MHz radio band. After many hours of dinking with channel selections, my signal consistantly stays about 90% (Router and wireless PC are only about 20 feet apart). The firmware on the router and PC have been upgraded to the most current.
I have a wired NAS device that is operating at 100Mb/s. My PC usually reports connection speeds of 270Mb/s on the wireless side (although that sometimes drastically fluctuates...this seems like a common issue with this hardware and 40MHz band).
With a reported connection speed of 270Mb/S I was hoping to get actual throughputs of around 100Mb/s. 15Mb/s seems pretty pathetic for the "draft N" claims that are being made. Is there some trick to optimizing the throughput???
Thanks,
Ryan
Hmmm...The fastest Ive gotten so far on wireless is about 17Mbps. I am using a WMP300N PCI adapter on the PC. Maybe the PC's wireless adapter could also be limiting throughput. I did try a wireless "G" transfer on a laptop and it also had very low numbers (somewhere between 10-20 Mbps). It sounds like your setup is similar to mine. If I could hit 30Mbps then I'd be happier, but it still seems a little odd that my typical rate is around 15Mbps. I guess I'm a little frustrated that hardware that costs twice as much as the G version does not perform any better (maybe even a little worse from my experience).
Oh well, thanks for your reply. I wonder if anyone has had higher wireless throughput using the WRT300N router? I've heard using the DD-WRT firmware can help, but I'm hesitant to go down that road.
By the way...I have not had my system lock up during transfers of any size. That sounds like a WUSB300N driver issue. That would be a frustrating problem.
-Ryan
Similar Messages
-
Hi!
I have had my SRP 541w for just over a year, BUGGER! So it is out of warranty now. Bought it in September 2012. It has been working like a charm since then. A couple of days ago my network speed suddenly dropped to about 10 mbit/s. That is true of all connections LANtoLAN, WANtoLAN and LANtoWAN. All my equipment is 1 gb/s. I have upgraded the firmware to 1.2.6, set the speed of the LAN ports to 1000 FULL, rebooted, tried with only one computer attached nothing else connected. WAN disconnected and throughput between LAN ports, nothing seems to make any difference. Did a factory reset, still no change.
I would really appreciate help on this! I really hope it has not stopped working properly. Not good advertisment for CISCO in that case, One month over warranty and suddenly BANG.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Sven GustavssonGot my hands on a multi adatper and plugged that in as well. No change, powerlight flashes and extremly slow throughput.
If it is of any use, the power light flashes 3 times then a few seconds delay, then flashes 3 times then few seconds delay and repeat. This does seem lik an error code of some kind that we have no documentation for. Maybe its time for someone from Cisco to enlighten us as to the nature of the powerlight flashing? -
I've got an EA6900 set up for routing duties on a Virgin Media 120Mbps cable connection. I'm seeing incredibly slow throughput on the Linksys router and after looking for obvious causes i'm stumpted.
The EA6900 is plugged into the Virgin Media 'Superhub' which is set to modem-mode. In this configuration, a single wired device with a gigabit ethernet card is seeing download speeds of around 9Mbps. However, when a switch the Superhb into router-mode and connect the same one device directly to that, the download speeds jump to 100Mbps.
I've tried several different network cables between the modem and EA6900, but the results are the same. I've also been in touch with Virgin Media who said there were no issues with the upstream connection.
It would suggest the cause is something to do with the EA6900. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Ben
Solved!
Go to Solution.fleggster1701 wrote:
Unfortunately this hasn't worked for me. I have a very similar problem in regards I have a 120Mbps Virgin broadband connection and with the Linksys connected my connection maxes out at 20Mbps Down and 10Mbps up. This slowly degrades over time down to 2Mbps until the router is rebooted.
I did have Media Prioritisation on with a Bandwidth limit of 0. When I disabled it, the speed went up to around 37Mbps but still nowhere near 120Mbps. With Media Priotisation enabled but no specificed devices or protocols it still maxes out at 20Mbps.
I've replaced cables and contacted Virgin. Virgin have confirmed it's the Router as when my PC is connected directly to the SuperHub I get 124Mbps without issues.
I haven't tried the SuperHub in standard mode, this is only in Modem mode.
I hope someone can help!
I recommend:
Enable Media Prioritization and WMM support
Set Downstream Bandwidth to 120Mbps
Keep all devices and apps normal priority to start
Please remember to Kudo those that help you.
Linksys
Communities Technical Support -
AP1231G-A-K9 access points - very slow throughput - Is TKIP the issue?
I recently setup our small office network using the following setup:
Cablemodem <--> router <--> 1231AP(role root bridge with wireless clients) <-> 1231AP(role non-root bridge with wireless clients)
Code on both APs: 12.3(8)JEE
Office network generally has less than 3 wireless clients connected at any one time to either AP.
AP's are a mere 50' apart; clients are all less than 30' from either AP; they all show excellent signal and connected at 54mbps signaling rates.
All is/has been working very well & very stable with the exception of speed. We have business class service from RR, approx 25mbps dl, 2mbps ul. Any hardwired client to the router switch ports are able to download at speeds averaging 23mbps. Any wireless client connected to either AP is never able to exceed download speeds of 5mbps. With no other wireless clients connected except my one test client, I was not able to exceed 5mbps throughput from either AP that I connected to.
I can confirm that the ethernet connection between the router and root bridge is up at 100mbps-FD and not showing any errors:
ap#sh interfaces FastEthernet0
FastEthernet0 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is PowerPC405GP Ethernet, address is 0013.60cf.bb29 (bia 0013.60cf.bb29)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, MII
ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
Input queue: 0/160/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
5 minute input rate 5000 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 1000 bits/sec, 1 packets/sec
8054605 packets input, 3141009145 bytes
Received 46005 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
0 watchdog
0 input packets with dribble condition detected
4076106 packets output, 411952731 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 4 interface resets
0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
Wandering thru the cli on either AP shows that all wireless clients are indeed connected at 54mbps to their respective AP and the two AP's are connected happily at 54mbps signaling:
Address : 0013.1a37.b3e0 Name : ap
IP Address : 192.168.0.120 Interface : Dot11Radio 0
Device : 11g-bridge Software Version : 12.3
CCX Version : NONE
State : Assoc Parent : Our Parent
SSID : Tsunami
VLAN : 0
Hops to Infra : 0 Association Id : 44
Tunnel Address : 0.0.0.0
Key Mgmt type : WPA PSK Encryption : TKIP
Current Rate : 54.0 Capability : WMM ShortHdr ShortSlot
Supported Rates : 1.0 2.0 5.5 6.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 48.0 54.0
Voice Rates : disabled
Signal Strength : -51 dBm Connected for : 75169 seconds
Signal to Noise : 26 dB Activity Timeout : 14 seconds
Power-save : Off Last Activity : 1 seconds ago
Apsd DE AC(s) : NONE
Packets Input : 1050695 Packets Output : 296536
Bytes Input : 474651248 Bytes Output : 96734573
Duplicates Rcvd : 0 Data Retries : 63646
Decrypt Failed : 0 RTS Retries : 0
MIC Failed : 0 MIC Missing : 0
Packets Redirected: 0 Redirect Filtered: 0
Here is a config snippet from the AP non-root bridge with wireless clients:
dot11 ssid Tsunami
authentication open
authentication key-management wpa
guest-mode
infrastructure-ssid optional
wpa-psk ascii 7 (snipped)
bridge irb
interface Dot11Radio0
no ip address
no ip route-cache
encryption mode ciphers tkip
ssid Tsunami
speed basic-1.0 2.0 5.5 6.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 48.0 54.0
station-role non-root bridge wireless-clients
bridge-group 1
bridge-group 1 subscriber-loop-control
bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
interface FastEthernet0
no ip address
no ip route-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
bridge-group 1
bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
interface BVI1
ip address dhcp client-id FastEthernet0
no ip route-cache
bridge 1 route ip
(The AP root-bridge with wireless clients config is identical to this config with the exception of the station-role and a static IP on the BVI1 interface.)
Are these very slow thoughput speeds normal of this hardware combination?
I did much searching/googling and found claims that by eliminating TKIP it almost doubles the actual wireless speeds our clients can obtain. Is there any truth to this?
Any suggestions or recommendations without changing hardware would be very welcome.
Thanks in Advance!
D.
=============Ok, thanks for the explanation - I understand. But even at a 22mbps signaling rate shouldn't I be seeing throughputs greater than 5-5.5mbps especially since this location is literally 100% free of any outside interference and the interfaces definitely show the clients and non-root bridge (when connected) all being at the highest rate of 54mbps? I tried even in the same room, approximately 40' away, total line of sight, no obstructions, between my laptop and the root AP.
I disconnected the non-root bridge and connected directly to the root bridge during my testing. I was still only able to achieve approx 5.5mbps download. Adding back in the non-root bridge and re-connecting to it I notice slightly lower throughput, approx 5mbps. During testing, my laptop was the only device connected to the network, all other clients were shut off.
Here are the int stats (I've never reset the counters):
Root Bridge:
RATE 1.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 2178725 / 49 Tx Packets: 39 / 0
Rx Bytes: 335124036 /7595 Tx Bytes: 4965 / 0
RTS Retries: 61 / 0 Data Retries: 5 / 0
Non-Root-Bridge:
RATE 1.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 2323120 / 50 Tx Packets: 141 / 0
Rx Bytes: 336455923 /7595 Tx Bytes: 17869 / 0
RTS Retries: 2 / 0 Data Retries: 56 / 0
All the other rates, 2-12mbps show single or double digit packet/byte counts until I get to the 36mbps section of each interface:
ap#sh int Dot11Radio0 stati
DOT11 Statistics (Cumulative Total/Last 5 Seconds):
(snipped for brevity)
Root Bridge:
RATE 36.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 915395 / 1 Tx Packets: 2345589 / 9
Rx Bytes: 93420936 / 70 Tx Bytes: 3370791285 / 874
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 573981 / 4
RATE 48.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 2163192 / 2 Tx Packets: 216861 / 0
Rx Bytes: 222455730 / 404 Tx Bytes: 182817967 / 0
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 106808 / 0
RATE 54.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 987986 / 0 Tx Packets: 168923 / 0
Rx Bytes: 190467269 / 0 Tx Bytes: 61665042 / 0
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 34424 / 0
Non-Root Bridge:
RATE 36.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 2368679 / 0 Tx Packets: 965419 / 0
Rx Bytes: 3396819830 / 0 Tx Bytes: 90880825 / 0
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 242686 / 0
RATE 48.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 341870 / 0 Tx Packets: 2156282 / 1
Rx Bytes: 216497093 / 0 Tx Bytes: 215775536 / 210
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 478619 / 0
RATE 54.0 Mbps
Rx Packets: 1469926 / 15 Tx Packets: 2529678 / 15
Rx Bytes: 411722698 /1122 Tx Bytes: 1366306113 /5159
RTS Retries: 0 / 0 Data Retries: 198532 / 0
I will try disabling the rates below 12mbps and re-test.
I would like to try disabling all encryption and try as well.
Do you know if the AP's will associate if there is zero encryption? -
Well it had to happen or logging a Slow throughput...
came home from work to find my connection slowed to a crawl.
powercycle pc,active nte & HH3 still dog slow (via ethernet as always)
run BT Speedtester, 1035 down 1395 up with a 38717 profile
Tried running test 3 using the speedtester login however this failed to complete. Actually it failed to start as keot getting a 404 even after making sure I was using autoassigned DNS
hmmm not good so girded loins and called Tech support.
And may I say I was pleasnatly surprised. The Offshore chappy listened to what I had too say regarding the throughput and repeated it back to me.
Advised he would need to run some line tests and would get back in 20 minutes.
10 minutes later he called back and advised a line issue had been identified and that a exchange engineer task (LL13 probably) was being raised. Further (correctly for standard care line) advised me that where possible the fault would resolved within 48 hours and asked which number I would like to be contacted on and advised of the fault reference.
Just checked (slowly ) on line and sure enough all the same information is there.
So in summary I'ld just like to say top marks to the Offshore support staff on this occasion.
Now lets see if the problem gets fixed
DISCLAIMER: although I work in the industry I do not work for BT and any opinions given are purely my own.ok quick update
Fault showed as resolved in the fault traker.
Downstream now 7mb but upstream plummeted to 250kpbs
Also I cant run speedtester.bt.com as it wants me to change my login to speedtest@speedtest_domain, which isn't a problem but when I do I can't actually hit the speedtester site by name or IP
hmmmmmm
anyways clear rejected and off to bed.
DISCLAIMER: although I work in the industry I do not work for BT and any opinions given are purely my own. -
High synch rate with VERY slow throughput
Help!!!
I'm hoping that the one of the mods on here may be able to intervene and help get my issue sorted.
I had my home broadband upgraded to adsl2 on the 8th of Feb. after 5 years of hassle free service on up to 8 Meg service.
From the day of upgrade (of which has given no significant increase in speed by the way), I've had an issue with fluctuating throughput whilst my synch rate remains rock solid at 6.5-7mb/s.
On any given day I can get my full expected throughput of between 6 and 6.5mb/s but can have long periods of dial up speeds at 40-50kbp/s which can be morning, day or night, so not a peak time bandwidth cap/throttle issue. I have given it the 10 day stabilisation before taking up with tech helpdesk, but after nearly 2 weeks of calls and going round in circles I'm running out of patience.
Can I just add I'm an Openreach engineer who deals with broadband/SFI faults daily so have made sure the issue does not lie within the network or premises. I've also taken a hub and connected it direct on to the adsl out port of the exchange mdf and witnessed the same speed problems, so am in no doubt that the problem is with BT. When I try to explain to the helpdesk advisors it doesn't seem to register. Whether it's down to a fault on my port or a general congestion issue on the backhaul I don't know but just need someone to get to the bottom of it for me
I am awaiting a call back with an update in the next 2 days but judging by the way thing have gone down so far I'm not confident I'll get a result, so was hoping someone on here could help.in order to get things moving you need to post your router adsl stats and also btspeedtester results. would help if you can post a good set where download is ok and then a poor set for comparison
If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side of the post.
If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’. -
Slow throughput on 7.1 Mb/s line
I ran some speed tests today to check my 7.1 Mb/s line as I do occasionally and I found out that even though I was syncing with the CO at 7661 my download speed tests are only coming back in the 1.1 to 2.0 range. Some were actually well below 1.0 today. Previously I was routinely getting speed tests in the 6.5 to 6.6 range on this line, which has been provisioned at this speed for 3 and a half years. My current transceiver stats are as follows:
Transceiver Statistics
Transceiver Revision: 7.2.3.0
Vendor ID Code: 4
Line Mode: ADSL2+ Mode
Data Path: Interleaved
Transceiver Information Downstream Path Upstream Path
DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec) 7661 863
Margin (dB) 6.0 14.0
Line Attenuation (dB) 45.0 25.0
Transmit Power (dBm) 19.4 12.1
I know that my downstream margin is low at 6.0 but this is a VERY STABLE line that will go weeks without losing sync even with that low margin. The ADSL2+ is really giving me some help at my attenuation.
So far today for troubleshooting I tried replacing my 7-year-old Westell 327W B90 modem with a brand-new Westell 327W D90 modem that I had stored away in a box. There was no difference in the speed tests when I used either modem. They were both running the 4.04.03 firmware which is the latest for the Westell 327W modems.
I also tried uninstalling and reinstalling my NIC card as I'm connected via ethernet cable to my modem. That made no difference in my speed tests either.
I did run a Network Diagnostic Tool at M-Lab with the following results:
Upload speed
0.73 Mb/s
Download speed
1.1 Mb/s
Network latency: 5.8e+2 msec round trip time
Jitter: 8.1e+2 msec
Your system: Windows XP version 5.1
Java version: 1.7.0_04 (x86)
TCP receive window: 255552 current, 255552 maximum
9.62464E-4 packets lost during test
Round trip time: 70 msec (minimum), 875 msec (maximum), 580.12 msec (average)
Jitter: 805 msec
0 seconds spend waiting following a timeout
TCP time-out counter: 935
130 selective acknowledgement packets received
No duplex mismatch condition was detected.
The test did not detect a cable fault.
Network congestion may be limiting the connection.
No network address translation appliance was detected.
0.9756% of the time was not spent in a receiver limited or sender limited state.
0.0% of the time the connection is limited by the client machine's receive buffer.
Optimal receive buffer: 261685248 bytes
0 duplicate ACKs set
So it looks like I have a network congestion issue going on. I'm wondering if it has to do with the router that I'm on or if my local CO (Fall River, MA) is having a more widespread problem. I'm thinking of keeping an eye on it for the next few days and see if it gets back to normal on its own. I'm very hesitant to contact Verizon as the last time I did a few years ago they cut my speed down to 5 from 7.1 and took away my ADSL2+. I had to talk to executive customer relations to get them back and it was not an easy task!
Does anyone have any suggestions or opinions about my situation?PROBLEM RESOLVED
I contacted the Verizon Direct Forum at DSL Reports and received a telephone call from someone at the executive customer relations department at Verizon. He was able to have someone from my local Central Office who does network management/DSL provisioning contact me directly by phone. I was changed over to a "less congested" router right while I was on the phone with this person from my local CO. My ADSL2+ and 7.1 speed package were left intact on my line during the change to a new router. All seems to be well as I am now getting actual speed throughput of 6.5 to 6.6 even during peak evening hours! -
Slow throughput Ironport S370 Proxy CPU 100%
We have a cluster of 3 x Ironport S370's all running 7.7.0-753
The throughput is really poor we have a 500Mbps Internet connection which at it's peak is only getting to 120Mbps as the Ironports don't seem to be able to handle the traffic.
The Proxy CPU% is always close to 100% but the overall CPU is usually at no more than 30% at times it can take up to 60 seconds to load the initial page particularly if the site is an HTTPS site.
We have
22 Identities
62 Access policies
6 decryption Policies
Our maintainer says that having this number of Identities / policies should not be an issue but I have my doubts.
Can anyone advise as it's really become a major issue, Output from the rate and status commands are below.
%proxy reqs client server %bw disk disk
CPU /sec hits blocks misses kb/sec kb/sec saved wrs rds
99.00 285 373 1293 1193 26484 21838 17.5 550 100
99.00 286 209 1313 1335 28682 24532 14.5 635 80
99.00 285 182 1323 1359 37083 33529 9.6 1351 0
100.00 231 132 1051 1113 34816 34151 1.9 355 0
98.00 253 161 1171 1195 39668 37236 6.1 1363 0
99.00 294 256 1225 1469 51371 43304 15.7 1117 40
96.00 346 525 1166 1763 31882 23300 26.9 1328 0
98.00 302 228 1258 1534 30385 25565 15.9 1302 0
99.00 295 149 1200 1597 26253 22888 12.8 816 0
98.00 275 199 1020 1536 35237 31443 10.8 838 0
99.00 288 184 1131 1574 35019 26688 23.8 1433 0
99.00 262 116 1073 1437 24744 23228 6.1 1306 0
105.00 307 292 1165 1610 24249 20236 16.6 1061 0
Status as of: Thu Oct 16 08:28:10 2014 GMT
Up since: Wed Oct 15 15:21:19 2014 GMT (17h 6m 51s)
System Resource Utilization:
CPU 28.2%
RAM 82.6%
Reporting/Logging Disk 16.0%
Transactions per Second:
Average in last minute 266
Maximum in last hour 296
Average in last hour 118
Maximum since proxy restart 296
Average since proxy restart 9
Bandwidth (Mbps):
Average in last minute 25.461
Maximum in last hour 49.605
Average in last hour 16.400
Maximum since proxy restart 49.605
Average since proxy restart 1.365
Response Time (ms):
Average in last minute 179
Maximum in last hour 526
Average in last hour 192
Maximum since proxy restart 17710
Average since proxy restart 3165
Cache Hit Rate:
Average in last minute 16
Maximum in last hour 25
Average in last hour 7
Maximum since proxy restart 25
Average since proxy restart 0
Connections:
Idle client connections 1276
Idle server connections 1170
Total client connections 1638
Total server connections 1890In the release notes it states...
IMPORTANT: During testing of AsyncOS 7.7.0, Cisco observed performance changes ranging from +
33% to - 16%, depending on the model and configuration. Performance degradation risk is limited to
S160 & S360 models and models S370 and S660 that are running the web proxy without security
services. If you experience performance degradation with AsyncOS 7.7.0, Cisco recommends that you
revert to AsyncOS 7.5.x.
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/security/wsa/wsa7-7/Release_Notes/WSA_7-7-0_Builds_after_725_Release_Notes.pdf -
Hyper-v 2012 r2 slow throughputs on network / live migrations
Hi, maybe someone can point me in the right direction, I have 10 servers 5 Dell r210s and 5 Dell R320's, I have basically converted these servers to standalone hyper-v 2012 servers, so there is no clustering on any at the moment.
Each server is configured with 2 1Gb nics teamed via a virtual switch, now when I copt files between server 1 and 2 for example I see 100MBs throughput, but if I copy a file to server 3 at the same time the file copy load splits the 100MBs throughput between
the 2 copy processes. I was under the impression if I copied 2 files to 2 totally different servers the load would basically be split across the 2 nics effectively giving me 2Gbs throughput but this does not seem to be the case. I have played around with tcpip
large send offloads, jumbo packets, disabled vmq on the cards, they are broadcoms. :-( but it doesn't really seem to make a difference with all of these settings.
The other issue is If I live migrate a 12Gb vm machine running only 2gb ram, effectively just an o/s it takes between 15 to 20 minutes to migrate, I have played around with the advanced settings, smb, compression, tcpip not real game changers, BUT if I shut
town the vm and migrate it, it takes, just under 3 and a half minutes to move across.
I am really stumped here, I am busy in a test phase of hyper-v but cant find any definitive documents relating to this stuff.Hi Mark,
The servers (hyper-v 2012 r2) are all basically configured with ssvmm2012R2 where they all have teamed 1Gb pNics, into a virtual switch, then there are vNics for the Vmcloud, live migration etc. The physical network is 2 Netgear Gs724T switches which
are interlinked and each servers 1st nic is plugged into the switch1 and the second nic is plugged into the switch2.See Below Image) The hyper-v port is set to independent Hyper-v load balancing.
The R320 servers are running raid 5 sas drives, the R210s have 1Tb drives mirrored. The servers all are using DAS storage, we have not moved to looking at using iscsi and san is out the question at the moment.
I am currently testing between 2x 320s and 2x R210s, I am not copying data to the vm's yets, I am basically testing the transfer between the actual hosts at the moment by copying a 4Gb file manually, After testing the live migrations I decided to test to
see the transfer rates between the servers first, I have been playing around with the offload settings and rss, what I don't understand is yesterday, the copy between the servers was running up to 228Mbs ie (using both nics) when copying
the file between the servers, and then a few hours later it only was copying at 50/60Mbs, but its now back at 113Mbs seemingly to be only using one nic.
I was under the impression if you copy a file between 2 servers the nicks could use the 2gb bandwidth, but after reading many posts they say only one nic, so how did the copies get up to 2Gb yesterday. Then again if you copy files between 3 servers, then
each copy would use one nic, basically giving you 2Gbs, but this is again not being seen.
Regards Keith -
Slow throughput Nexus 5k 10GB to 1GB
Hello,
We have a Nexus 5020 with a FEX 2248. Server A is directly connected with 10G at the Nexus 5k and Server B with 1G at the FEX. Both servers are in the same Vlan and running with Linux (Ubuntu 11.10 and Scientific 6.1).
By running a bidirectional iperf-test, the throughput from Server B to A (1G to 10G) is 940 Mbits/sec and from Server A to B (10G to 1G) is only 140 Mbits/sec.
The performance from Server A to B is not favorable for e.g. a file server.
Can anybody help to optimize ?
Unidirectional tests give in both directions 940 Mbits/sec.
ThanksAndre,
Your issue is not "the same". You've got a 4500X in VSS but the OP is a Nexus. Two different beast.
Can I reqest if you create a new thread so it won't confuse other people?
When you do, please also post the output to the following commands:
1. sh interface ;
2. sh run interface ; and
3. sh counter interface -
FEX 6800-IA interface high drop rate and high overrun counters combined with slow throughput.
The interface drop rate count arises and the traffic throughput gets down to 15% of the nominal data rate of the 1Gb interface when a server with a 10Gb interface send data to a client connected at 1Gb FEX interface.
How must I configure the interface to achieve nearly 100% of 1Gb?
Client to Server: 100% of 1Gb; Sever to Client 15% of 1Gb
Server ---(10Gb)--- Nexus7010-- (10Gb)--- C6880-X----(10Gb)---FEX----(1Gb)ClientSorry, yes of course:
Server ---(10Gb)--- Nexus7010-- (10Gb)--- C6880-X----(10Gb)---6800-IA----(1Gb)---Client -
Slow throughput of tftp traffic through FWSM
I have FWSM ver 3.2 (L2 multiple contexts).
We get a very low performance for tftp traffic. We are implementing remote boot for PCs. TFTP server is behind the firewall. The throughput of tftp is about 0,5 - 2,5Mbps depending on the inspection of TFTP is on or off.
The same file is downloaded with windows file sharing protocols 100 times faster.
What are the reasons?
Thanks.We have been tried a few tests. Below are some of the results:
The file of 100 Mb was transmitted without FWSM by tftp for 29 sec.
The same file of 100 Mb was transmitted with FWSM (tftp inspection is off) by tftp for 62 sec.
Sniffer shows that every packet is 1408 byte. Each packet is acknowledging during transmission.
So the file of 100MB is transmitted with using 100000000/1408 =71000 packes.
33sec/71000 = 0,46 ms – this is two way delay introduced by FWSM. One way delay is 0,23 ms.
Is it normal delay or not? -
Hello -- I just read a post claiming that WPA2 security slows down a network.
Is there any truth to this?
Thanks--Tesserax wrote:
Yes, the use of encryption protocols (WEP, WPA, or WPA2) will add additional network overhead traffic, and effectively, "slow down" communications between devices on a wireless network.
BUT, it's worth it, you don't want other people 'borrowing' your bandwidth and, say, downloading music with the IP address that the RIAA people will be using to sue you.
Also if someone else is using your connection the odds are that'll slow you down more than overhead from encryption will. -
Hi
Does anyone else have these issues? And BT, please read all of this message...
Firstly, none of my queries have been answered or dealt with by BT, secondly, I have done the suggested ‘steps’ to resolve my issue over 30 times. When my upload speed is faster than my download speed, then something is wrong when my current connection is: Download: 224 kbps/Upload: 448 kbps…
Really? Average Broadband Speed in the UK
OK, it’s like this… I ordered BT in April 2012 and your website stated that Infinity would be available for me in August of 2012, either way, 12 months later I’m still waiting. As a point of interest, you have changed your Infinity statement recently to state “Fibre optic broadband is estimated to be in your area between March 2013 and June 2013. Please note that these dates have been provided by our supplier and are estimates. Dates may be subject to change due to factors outside our control such as; delays agreeing cabinet locations with your local council or unforeseen issues encountered during the construction of your street cabinet.” Is this because too many people are complaining that you have miss-sold your services? A quick forum search online says yes! I have attached screenshots from the old message that I saw when ordering.
New Message:
Old Message:
So, after I placed my order in April 2013, A BT Engineer comes to my home, puts in a new line. I connect to said new line via the Ethernet cable provided in the box for my new BT Hub. Now with all connection issues, I have swapped out the cable for others and always reverting back to the provided cable by BT when I still get the same rubbish results. My computer has been formatted 4 times, the last was to do a clean installation to Windows 8. No matter what OS I have installed, I still get really terrible speeds. For my area, it states I should get an estimated and whopping “2Mb-6Mb” download speed range. My copnnection has dropped, slowed to a crawl and even disconnected me for hours, this is every week since the line has been installed.
I have worked in the IT industry as a network engineer and I’m tired of BT’s argument that the fault is my own and that you shirk the responsibility when it’s you’re equipment and your installation that I’m using. SO, How can it be the wiring in the house when I connect to a wall socked that you installed (and is literally 46 inches away) and a hub that you sent to me? Now, I have so much noise on my line that at times I cannot hear people who call me. If I answer the phone or make a phone call, my internet connection just drops and I get the, oh so familiar, orange flashing light on my BT Home Hub. I have had many noise margin resets.
I have spoken to over 30 representatives, at least 10 of them reading from notes and scripts and most did not read my call or problem history, including the last response from a tech guy. Yes I have changed my ADSL Filters, both that came with the HUB and 2 different ones that I went out and bought (at my own cost). I took of the face plate on my wall socked and I am using the test/master connection. I have changed all the cables and swapped them back. I have done everything possible and yet my problem remains.
After I complain and someone checks my line, I get a steady connection (Download) at around 4.125 kbps for about 4 days, then the problem comes back again, so this tells me that it is not my home wiring or equipment, but the steady connection from the pole to either the street cabinet or the datacentre/exchange.
All I want is a stable internet connection, if I can’t have infinity yet, so be it, but I want a stable connection. Is that too much to ask?
On contacting BT they advised me to do the following (Again)
BT Stated: That they've checked my line today and the results would suggest that there should be no problem with my broadband performance Well of couse it's working now because they did a noise margin reset and 4 days later, back to snail pace (this happens every time they do a niose reset). I AM syncing at the exchange and have a stable line connection. The latest speed test results show a downstream sync rate of around 4.2mbps, which is within the accepted range for your line. If your broadband is performing as poorly as you've explained, it may be because of a slow throughput problem within the property.
Then they suggested I do try the following (also again):
It is very important that you please try the following steps and monitor for 48 hours, even if you have already done some of them:
Please try your broadband hub and adsl filter directly into your internal test socket of your main telephone socket (remove the bottom plate of your socket by undoing the 2 screws). If your socker doesn`t split in two, then please unplug all equipment from all extension sockets and try your hub and filter and ethernet cable direct to the master socket front plate.
Please reboot your hub (push pen nib into pinhole on back of your hub for 10 seconds and release).
Please change the adsl filter if possible.
Please try with an ethernet cable (yellow ends) instead of wireless connection.
Please try a different computer if you have one.
You can also run a speed test on the BT speedtester website. Please do this whilst in internal test socket (or master socket front plate) and using ethernet cable and monitor for 48 hours.
They also appreciate my co-operation in doing the above tests and if my broadband is still performing poorly after completing the above (again which I have done over 30 times), then I will need to send a broadband engineer to your property, but this visit should then be free of charge, as you would`ve eliminated all your own internal equipment and wiring from being a possible cause of the fault, so please email back to us if you require a broadband engineering visit.
My previous problem was this:
I woke up this morning and after an hour trying to get connected, I received an email from my boss telling me that he has to let me go because I can’t submit my work on time. This is all due to crappy slow speeds and drop-outs from BT. So thanks for that. Saying I am now very angry is a pure understatement!
I am now going to write to Ofcom and your head office and I will now change providers. You miss sold me with the hope of getting Infinity and a year later, I’m still waiting. Less than 1mbps for daily internet is pathetic. I work from home and as a Visual Effects artist I download and upload massive files and I have struggled. There’s no point getting a business line because my speeds will still be the same.
Also, I was informed by one of your representatives that I didn’t need to pay the reconnection fee and a late fee that I occurred last month because it took YOU 5 days to switch me back on after I paid my bill in full (and each of the 6 reps I spoke too couldn’t understand why my services was not restored). I was also informed in my last email from BT that you have no record of this and I still have to pay, well I’m very insulted and I’m sorry, it’s what I was told so I will not be paying it.
The service I have received has been terrible. Your support people don’t really help me and I get canned answers and brush offs and crappy excuses that would fool most people. The line and connection speed is not worth the money I pay for it each month.
Its 2013 and BT still doesn’t have super fast broadband for everyone. At the moment, it would be faster to send an email printed out and strapped to a pidgin and please spare me your excuses about planning permission and estimated dates (which you keep changing each month. Why can’t you just say you don’t know when Infinity will be available instead of getting people like myself to sign up with the home that it will be available shortly). You simply do not care about your customers. My neighbours all have the same issues, so I know it’s not just tied to me. The last lady I spoke too told me that the fault was on my end. Well my Phone and Hub are connected directly into the box that YOUR engineer installed for me and you have the nerve to tell me that I have to pay for an engineer to come out? Not a chance, especially now that I have no job thanks to your poor internet and support.
So I have now had enough.
M Knight.
Michael KnightHi Conrad.
Thanks for the message. I've had BT looking into line problems for a year now, and they want ME to may for an engineer to come out (untill my last complaint where they stated that one will come out for free, but I'm still awaiting a reply from BT about that).
As for being stuck with the connection, well I'll fight BT in court because I am not getting my monies worth and at £26 a month and a download speed of 224kbps is terrible. I don't really want to have to change providers because it's a hassle, but I feel I have no choice. Virgin is in my area with 100mbps, so why am I putting up with such dire connection speeds. If I wait till December, I can cancel, but mhy should I have to wait when I am not getting a good service?
I feel your pain with dates being pushed back, dangling a carrot infront of a donkey if you ask me.
Thanks.
Mike.
Michael Knight -
Time machine ridiculously slow since upgrading to Lion
Hiya,
I have a Macbook Pro and an Apple TimeCapsule, since upgrading to Lion last week, it is having stupidly slow throughput, i've had to cancel the backups as i don't have the hours in the day to let it complete. this isn't a 3rd party device, it's a 1TB native Apple TimeCapsule. Is anyone else seeing this speed issue? It's making the Macbook run super hot too while it sits backing up so slowly.
Since the update it now wants to backup 8GB which at this rate will take all week!
Please tell me i'm not going mad
Many thanks,
Emma.The first backup after installing lion is going to take a while due to all of the new files and such. I also noticed that lion does a lot of file indexing after installation, both for spotlight AND time machine disks. When checking out processes, mdworker/mdworker32/mds (all indexing services from what I understand) were running for 1 or 2 days, but now the HDD activity (and time machine backups) are back to "normal".
My advice is to leave your Mac on overnight for 1 or 2 nights so it can get caught up...
Maybe you are looking for
-
NetStream.client can't be a class instance?
I tried this: netStream = new NetStream(netConnection, NetStream.DIRECT_CONNECTIONS); netStream.addEventListener(NetStatusEvent.NET_STATUS, streamStatus); netStream.publish("gamestate"); netStream.client = this; public function onPeerConnect(ns:NetSt
-
Cannot have multiple items selected in a DropDownList when edit the forum in sharepoint
hi , i have custom forum for new and edit, in new forum we have controls drop down values, when select drop down1 values that related values are displayed in dropdown2 , when edit item that time we getting error Cannot have multiple items selec
-
Favorites within Bluetooth - what does it mean?
Hi, I am trying to figure out what something does on my iPhone. This may be with either the 3G or 3GS because I think it has more to do with the OS. If you go in to General/Bluetooth/Handsfree Link (what my Acura MDX uses to connect as a phone) What
-
HP Pavilion dv6-6c57ea Entertainment Notebook PC windows 764 BitHome premium
Tried everything but my HP Pavilion dv6-6c57ea Entertainment Notebook PC has a stereo mix there.. I see it but playing music in a chatroom I own is not possible. I disable Logitech headset and try to make stereo mix default but no joy. Confusing also
-
Hi, Can you please help me with the code for populating the Handling units while shipment creation using bapis. Thanks, Thomas Kash Moderator message: please (re)search yourself first. Edited by: Thomas Zloch on Dec 9, 2010 10:55 AM