Wrt310n gigabit ethernet 20% network utilization?

hi there,
I am transfering a large multi-gigabyte file over the gigabit ethernet of the router, two computers, which both register as 1 gbps in the network window of the Task Manager and I see the network utilization is only about 20%.
Should this network utilization not be higher (these are the only two computers that are transferring any significant data.
thx,
Cos

As long as you have Internet Connection up and running you should not worry about the Network Utilization...
You should use CAT 6e cabling on a Gigabit connection...

Similar Messages

Mac Gigabit Ethernet Cards Network Performance

I now have a 1.8ghz CoreDuo MacMini and 2.0ghz MacBook and both have gigabit Ethernet cards in them, based on the Marvell Yukon chipset i believe.
I was wondering upto what speeds people have driven these ethernet cards?
I'm doing some testing using iperf version 2.0.4 but I can't seem to get any more than around 30MB/sec out of the cards.
Is this their limit? Have you managed to get better out of them? If so, how?
Synology have just brought out a NAS box (DS209), that reads and writes at around 60MB/sec, but pretty pointless unless your ethernet card is upto the same speeds.

If your notation is technically correct, you are saying you are getting 30 megabytes per second as your tested speed. That would translate to 240 megabits per second, which is above the old 100 megabits per second limitation. If this is all accurate, then the next question is what cabling and other equipment are you using to connect the two? If the cabling is not Cat6 (category 6) you may not be able to achieve optimal transfer speeds. If you are using a hub, switch, or router which is not gigabit rated, you would have limitations there.

Networking a G5 dual 2.5ghz and a Powerbook G4/550 (Gigabit Ethernet)

I have two macs. A PowerMac G5 dual 2.5ghz with 2 gigs ram. My other one is a Powerbook G4/550 (Gigabit Ethernet)(with PCMCIA Slot). I have the G5 at my desk and the Powerbook upstairs (about 100 feet by walking 40 feet as the crow flies. I have a 115 year old house with unGodly thick mortar walls that make any networking a challenge so I do not want to guess. I want the best networking solution afordability wise and efficiency wise. Mobility is not that big of a deal and speed of data transfer is paramount. I also do not want slow download or transfer speeds on either machine. I don't transfer mush from BIG MAC to small mac but the internet thing (SPEED) is important. I do movie and music editing on both and maintain a web site daily with tons of each on it. Should I wire the thing to avoid slow wireless speeds and what all do I need. I know my laptop (Original Airport) speed is 11mbs. but I can't seem to find any comparison to ethernet wired speeds. I have DSL and no airport card and don't mind wiring if the speed is lots better. Can someone straighten me out or point me to the andwers? Please? indigorob

If speed is important then you want to run ethernet cable between the computers. The Mac's ethernet (10/100/1000) connector is capable of 10 megabits/second, 100 megabits/second, and 1000 megabits/second (Gigabit Ethernet). The original airport is about 11 megabits/second. The Airport Extreme/Express is 54 megabits/second.
You can easily get at least 100 megabits/second by running wired Ethernet.

Supplementing Airport Extreme 802.11n network with Gigabit Ethernet wired

Right now, I have an AEBS (Gigabit Ethernet) as my Internet router and network host, with an Airport Express elsewhere in the house to extend range for wireless devices. I'm steadily gaining A/V items with Internet or networking connectivity. AEBS and the A/V equipment are in different rooms. I am concerned that setting those devices up for wireless will cause needless complexity with inferior performance to Ethernet.
Here is what I think I should do:
1. Get wall panels installed by both the AEBS and A/V equipment wired for Ethernet;
2. Set up a Gigabit Ethernet switch in the basement, into which all these Ethernet outlets would run; and
3. Connect both the AEBS and the various A/V devices into the wall (and thereby through to the Ethernet switch) through their Ethernet ports. The goal is to have all of the devices on the same AEBS-hosted network to share data and have access to the AEBS Internet connection.
Any reason this should not work? Would the AEBS and the Ethernet switch need to be in the same room for any reason? I'd just like to make sure all of my ports are running in the right direction. In particular, I'd like to know if I am making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Thanks for your comments.

What you are planning should work without any problems.

Network driver "broadcom NetLink BCM5784M Gigabit Ethernet PCIe" Solaris 11

Hi All,
I am running Solaris 11/11 X86-64 on my DELL Laptop XPS Studio 1645. All is working fine except for the network driver for Broadcom NetLink BCM5784M Gigabit Ethernet PCIe.
On Oracle HCL for Oracle Solaris OS site, they have the driver for Solaris 10/8. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/hcl/1362598.html
Does anyone know if there is a similar driver for Solaris 11?
Note: I tried to installed the driver for Solaris 10 on Solaris 11 server, it failed.
The network card is an onboard network card on my DELL laptop, I can change it.
Many thanks in advance for you help.
Teck.

What information do you get from Device Driver Utility? (Applications>System Tools)
Have you looked here: http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/hcl/devicelist/index.html

Max nodes using Gigabit ethernet and 10G RAC

Does anybody have any experience on the maximum practical number of nodes that can be hooked together using Gigabit ethernet (over copper) as the interconnect? What's the largest such configuration that anyone has done before saturating the private network? I realize that the type of application/database and utilization can affect this (i.e. OLTP vs DW vs etc...) but I'm just trying to get an idea. I heard 1 dba say that they started saturating the network after 4 nodes. Another said the practical limit was 32.
Any real world numbers out there?

Well, without knowing there needs, there isn't much i can offer you. gigE interconnects are about as fast as most locally contained IO devices if you have a quality network to back it up with.
5 nodes is no problem in most cases, however if your concerned and have the budget - look at enterprise class interconnects such as:
http://doc.quadrics.com/quadrics/QuadricsHome.nsf/DisplayPages/Homepage
Most of the "high end" stuff is considered supercomputing for mass bandwidth on shared memory and bus interconnects.
10gigE is probably more affordable than true grid computing interconnects by supercomputing standards.
Grids really shine with planning - and not with brute force. You can make a "grid" that is divided in processing and databases but acts as one "instance" for example dedicate certain batch jobs to certain servers in the cluster, do backups from a backup node and distribute jobs across the network/grid. Your interconnects would usually be the least contention in an RDBMS environment vs your SAN/Storage environment.
Again.. depends on what you want to do and what your scalability requirements are :)

Network Utilization script throws error after re-executing

Hi everyone, I have a piece of code that finds the network util of a fileserver and if it is over 75% it stops executing the script. The script works the first time but after re-executing it, it throws an error. I've tried to null out all the variables I'm
using but it still won't work. Any help is appreciated! Thanks!
Code:
#Determines NIC utilization
$interfacebw = $null
$intbwbytes =$null
$currentbytespersec = $null
$linkutil = $null
Write-Host "Determining File Server Network Utilization.."
$interfacebw = Get-WmiObject -class Win32_PerfFormattedData_Tcpip_NetworkInterface -ComputerName tsvc2552101x001 | where {$_.Name -eq "Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet"} |select CurrentBandwidth
$intbwbytes = $interfacebw.currentbandwidth /8
$currentbytespersec = Get-WmiObject -class Win32_PerfFormattedData_Tcpip_NetworkInterface -ComputerName tsvc2552101x001 | where {$_.Name -eq "Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet"} |select BytesTotalPersec
[int]$currentbytespersec = $currentbytespersec.bytestotalpersec
if($currentbytespersec -le 0){
[int]$linkutil = 0
}else{
[int]$linkutil = ($currentbytespersec / $intbwbytes) * 100
#if NIC util is over 75 then it closes program
if($linkutil -gt 75){
$wshell.Popup("Network utilization over 75%, please try again later.",0,"Error",0x1) | Out-Null
$formSoftwareInstaller.Close()
return
Error:
Cannot convert value "@{BytesTotalPersec=3560}" to type "System.Int32". Error: "Cannot convert the "@{BytesTotalPersec=3560}" value of type "Selected.System.Management.ManagementObject" to type "System.Int32"."
At C:\Users\cody-horton\Desktop\Software Installer.ps1:406 char:9
+ $currentbytespersec = Get-WmiObject -class Win32_PerfFormattedData_Tcpip ...
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : MetadataError: (:) [], ArgumentTransformationMetadataException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : RuntimeException

This is all you need to do. You are way over coding this.
Write-Host "Determining File Server Network Utilization.."
$perfdata=Get-WmiObject -class Win32_PerfFormattedData_Tcpip_NetworkInterface -ComputerName tsvc2552101x001 -Filter 'Name="Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet"'
$intbwbytes=$perfdata.currentbandwidth/8
$currentbytespersec=$perfdata.BytesTotalPersec
#if NIC util is over 75 then it closes program
if(($currentbytespersec / $intbwbytes) -gt .75){
$wshell.Popup("Network utilization over 75%, please try again later.",0,"Error",0x1) | Out-Null
$formSoftwareInstaller.Close()
return
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Using both Dual Gigabit Ethernet Ports

Using both Dual Gigabit Ethernet Ports
If I plugged both of my ethernet ports into my LAN switch, that would double the bandwidth to and from my machine. A switch does not used shared bandwidth like a hub does. I realize that it won't speed up any of the other devices that are plugged into the switch. Regardless, I would have the capacity for double the bandwidth to my machine.
All LAN cables are CAT6 and the switch is 10/100/1000.
The question is, would Mac OS X 10.4.7 utilize both ports (soft of the way it uses multiple processors)?

It's easy to try... it's call "Link Aggregation"...
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304120
You get to it by Network>Show>Network Port Configurations>New then Port in the popup, then you schould see Port Aggregation. Selt the two ports you wish to combine.

G5 Can't See Gigabit Ethernet Card

Some months back, I installed a gigabit ethernet card into my G5. It worked fine for a few months, then stopped working with a message: The cable for PCI Ethernet Slot 3, Port 2 is not plugged in. I wasn't working on the project that required that connection, so I just let it go. Now I need to connect to a different gigabit switch. I installed a new D-Link card into the same slot as before - same result. I moved the D-Link card to a different slot - and got the same error - still referring to Slot 3. Just for kicks, I installed the old card back into slot 2 (the one above the video card). Same error - and no mention of finding two cards or of anything in the other slots. It seems as if somehow all of the PCI slots are being ignored.
Running the System Profiler, I get a "No Information Found" for PCI Cards. None of the lights on either ethernet card come on. Any ideas? Everything else on the machine seems to be working correctly - the built-in ethernet is fine. There are a lot of drives connected to the system (4 on the FireWire 800, 1 on FW 400, 4 on USB). Is there some way to force a re-scan of the PCI bus? or turn it on?
Thanks!!
G5 2 X 2 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Thomas -
Yes - I tried swapping slots. A gigabit card worked fine in slot 3 for several months. It stopped working - I figured it was the card that was th eproblem. I have since replaced the card, and then moved the new one to a different slot. The Network control panel still reports a card in slot 3, even though there is nothing in slot 3. The new card is in slot 4 (and just for kicks the old card is in slot 2). Neither of these is recognized by the the System Profiler or the network control panel.

Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet Adapter doesn't work

Just plugged in a Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet Adapter into MacBook Pro 15" 2.7GHz i7, OS 10.7.4
It is recognized correctly by System Profiler, but not in System Preferences - the Adapter just isn't shown in Network.
What is still needed?
Thanks for Answers!
DoktorMac®, Bern, Switzerland

Got this update:
All Thunderbolt-equipped Mac computers support this adapter. This adapter requires OS X Lion v10.7.4 or later. Thunderbolt-equipped Macs released prior to June, 2012, require the installation of Thunderbolt Software Update 1.2.1 to use this adapter.

What's the maximum LAN speed with the Thunderbolt to Gigabit Ethernet Adapter on my MacBook Pro?

While I was at Yodobashi Camera yesterday, I got a Thunderbolt to Gigabit ethernet adapter for my MacBook Pro. I figure, since I'm paying for the high speed fiber optic (Sony Nuro), why limit my self to wi-fi speeds at home?
Before connecting the adapter, via wi-fi it the speed was 143.8 Mbps down and 181.5 Mbps up.
After connecting the adapter and making a direct LAN connection to the router, the speed is 783.2 Mbps down and 940.1 Mbps up.
I'm certainly happy with the speed, but since Sony Nuro is supposed to be 2 Gbps down and 1 Gbps up I was wondering what the maximum possible is with this computer and adapter. Before asking the provider I was curious what the maximum specs where.
The ether cable is a 3 m category 6.
Thanks,
doug

It's not really your computer that is getting the 2Gbps download - it is the router/ modem.
If you hooked better/ different hardware up you could probably push those speeds around your network too. The trouble is that most residential hardware is gigabit ethernet not fibre. Fibre cards & cable are expensive in comparison.
The existing hardware may allow you to 'bond or aggregate' multiple ethernet connections into one link to get more speed over ethernet. Obviously this requires more complex routers, switches & a network admin to set it up
Those speeds sound nice, this bottleneck will mean that other devices on you network can't choke up the whole connection & make other users sad.

Gigabit ethernet + TC doesn't mean gigabit transfer rates to the TC drive..

Alright.... I've spent a ton of time trying to figure this out (probably more than I should have) and I thought I'd post my findings so that either a) I'll save someone else time out there or b) someone can tell me I'm a complete moron
So I had an airport extreme. I replaced it with a Time Capsule. I have a Windows (boooo) PC connecting directly to my TC using a gigabit ethernet card (which I bought specifically connect it to the TC) so (I thought) I could enjoy gigabit transfer speeds to the internal hard drive from the wired PC. I had some fun plans of shoving my itunes directory on the TC and letting appletv sync (yes through my pc) and keeping lots of videos there, etc. Who cares - it'd be at gigabit speeds! But, in reality, things didn't quite work that way (though my itunes directory does still live on my TC...for now).
Well, I had a semi-unique situation to do some pretty massive testing because I have 2 gigabit network cards, 1 100mb network card, and a wireless-n network card and two internal hard drives - both very fast. I also tried Cat 5, Cat 5e, and a Cat 6 cable.
And here's what I (think I) figured out:
The hard drive in TC can not achieve gigabit transfer speeds. Your transfer rates will be limited by the IO to the hard drive. In fact, it can't even come close.
Using my "fastest" setup - so Cat 6, fastest internal drive, gigabit ethernet, and transferring a file exactly 1 gig in size I was able to have a sustained transfer rate of 140 megabit per second - that's 17.4 MB/s for folks not wanting to do the math (that's reading FROM the TC. Writing TO the TC dropped the speed down to 106 megabit/second or 13.35 MB/s). Going to a 5e cable knocked that down to 130 megabit a second. Putting in a Cat 5 cable knocked me down to 110 megabit a second. Switching between my two gigabit network cards did nothing. Switching my cards between two computers did nothing.
Now, just changing the above setup to use my 100Mb network card resulted in these results: 67 megabit read (8.4MB/s) and 65 megabit write (8MB/s)...
And using wireless N, I got about 10MB/s up and down.
And just as a final test, connecting my two computers together using the 2 gigabit network cards through the TC, I was able to achieve standard gigabit speeds.
SO what does this all mean?
I think the IO to the hard drive in the TC can only read at about 140 megabit/s and write at about 110 megabit/s. I'm not sure if it's the HD itself or how it's connecting to the TC - but that's why I'm not aware of anyone getting faster transfer rates to the drive in the TC (maybe you guys are?). The gigabit ports themselves are fine - and if you're doing anything from one gigabit port to another gigabit port you'll be fine.
So stop beating yourself up trying to find some elusive XP specific issue with gigabit transfer rates (though vista had a problem - shocker), or that you must have a defective gigabit card (which is why I have two cards now instead of one :)), or that your cable must be bad ("maybe my cat 5e isn't good enough?")... it's just this drive ... or how the drive is connecting to the network - can't handle the gigabit speeds.
Unless someone else out there has another explanation? Do these speeds mesh with what you're seeing in "optimal" situations? Or maybe there's just a throttle switch for goobers like me using Windows instead of MacOS!

Hi,
the interfaces available today which connect your drives integrated electronics to your computer can handle that speeds. but the drive itself is limited by the mechanical things going on in there
You can get such transfer speeds if the data you request is in the cache of the drives internal electronics for example. Some drives have 8 MB of cache memory. So if you request to read or write less than 8 mb and (in the read case) you are lucky enough to have those few megabytes cached then you may get that performance
Regards,
somi

Airport extreme (gigabit ethernet) b/g not working

I have an airport extreme (gigabit ethernet) that I use as my base in an extended network. I Have always had it in Wireless N mode with b/g compatability. the other day my speeds went from being super fast and happy to less than 1mbps. I went and plugged directly in to the airport via ethernet and got blazing fast speeds again.. I switched my radio mode to n only and wireless speeds were fast again.. switched back to b/g compatible and they are in the toilet.. is it possible for the b/g compatible antenna to just crap out? if so this is very disoncerting as I have several wireless devices in my home that operate on b/g and don't want them to be left out in the cold.
Any input is greatly appreciated.

what I did with the b/g testing was I changed the name of the base station to another name so none of the b/g devices that were connecting to it could.. and so it was only the laptop I was using to run the tests.. and still the speeds were terrible.. of course then when I changed it to "n" only mode they were fast again. so I know that my laptop was the only client connected wirelessly or otherwise to the base station when running both tests.
I am extending the network with an airport extreme base station dual band. The solution I have in place currently is to basically swap them. I Have the Dual band running as the main base station in N mode with b/g compatability, and I have the Gigabit ethernet AEBS running as the extender... so far my speeds haven't suffered at all and hopefully it will hold that way. but I still can't understand why the AEBSn would suddenly just stop providing any kind of speed when running as the base in b/g compatibility mode.

Mac Mini Server Link aggregation - Thunderbolt or USB 3 gigabit ethernet adaptors

I am setting up a late 2012 Mac Mini as a file server with Server 2.2. It has a Promise Pegasus R4 RAID and LaCie 4TB drives daisy chained via the Thunderbolt connection. 4 users on MacPro's will connect to the server to access these hard drives via gigabit ethernet.
I imagine the gigabit ethernet will be the bottleneck, so I'm now looking at link aggregation. Not a problem on the MacPro's but the Mac Mini will require an adaptor to get a second gigabit port. From reading this forum I understand the Apple Thunderbolt to Gigabit adaptor will work, but I'm concerned that it will need to be fitted 3rd in line after the R4 and LaCie drives. The 10Gbps bandwidth Thunderbolt has, may cause another bottleneck with all three working off the same port?
An option would be to use one of the USB 3 ports with this adaptor http://www.ebuyer.com/412005-startec...edium=products
I believe it work with OSX, but I have no speed information or if OSX link aggregation will work using it.
Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated and recommendations on a suitable Network Switch with LACP support welcome.

At present Mountain Lion Server cannot use a LACP bond, in my experience only of course. http://www.small-tree.com/kb_results.asp?ID=59 describes LACP/Bonds do not show up in Server Admin GUI on Mountain Lion
anyone know how to do it? or the location and the name of the plist file to configure the network interface in ML server?
regards

Thunderbolt to gigabit ethernet problem

On my new Macbook Air (Intel Core i7) I'm trying to connect to my office network using a Thunderbolt to gigabit ethernet adapter, but the network system preferences say that the cable is unplugged. Any suggestions for how I can go about checking what's up?
Many thanks,
Adriaanh

I had this probem also in 10.9.
I was selecting Thunderbolt 1 from the dropdown list of interfaces.
It took a while to realize that Thunderbolt Ethernet is actually the correct option, lower down in the list.
hth,
b.

Wrt310n gigabit ethernet 20% network utilization?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for