Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I have one mobo with gigabit lan (K8V SE) and am about to setup
another machine with the gigabit cabability....also asus but
P4C800E-Deluxe.

I've never used gigabit lan but do have the adaptor on K8V working as
regular 10/100 with my gateway (A Netgear FVS318 router/firewall).
This is on a home setup with DSL Internet access.

Once I get the new machine setup in the lan I'm going to want to use
the gigabit speed between those two machines. Both are equiped for
video editing and will need to share massive video files measuring in
10s of Gb.

I'm sort of lost as to how to set this up. I guess I'll need a hub
that also talks gigabit?. My four home machines could be Something
like this simple diagram:

[INTERNET]
|
DSL modem
|
Netgear router/firewall (FVS318.. not gigabit)
| | |
10/100 | | | 10/100
MCH1 | MCH2
|
| 10/100
GIGABIT capable hub
| |
Gigabit GIGABIT
MCH3 MCH4

That is, an extra hub to pass the gigabit traffic between the two
Gigabit capable machines but it speaks 10/100 on the upstream side.

Or am I really over complicating this? Can these gigabit adapters
talk to each other in giga but to the rest of the network in 10/100?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <m3sm79noay.fsf@newsguy.com>, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>
wrote:

> I have one mobo with gigabit lan (K8V SE) and am about to setup
> another machine with the gigabit cabability....also asus but
> P4C800E-Deluxe.
>
> I've never used gigabit lan but do have the adaptor on K8V working as
> regular 10/100 with my gateway (A Netgear FVS318 router/firewall).
> This is on a home setup with DSL Internet access.
>
> Once I get the new machine setup in the lan I'm going to want to use
> the gigabit speed between those two machines. Both are equiped for
> video editing and will need to share massive video files measuring in
> 10s of Gb.
>
> I'm sort of lost as to how to set this up. I guess I'll need a hub
> that also talks gigabit?. My four home machines could be Something
> like this simple diagram:
>
> [INTERNET]
> |
> DSL modem
> |
> Netgear router/firewall (FVS318.. not gigabit)
> | | |
> 10/100 | | | 10/100
> MCH1 | MCH2
> |
> | 10/100
> GIGABIT capable hub
> | |
> Gigabit GIGABIT
> MCH3 MCH4
>
> That is, an extra hub to pass the gigabit traffic between the two
> Gigabit capable machines but it speaks 10/100 on the upstream side.
>
> Or am I really over complicating this? Can these gigabit adapters
> talk to each other in giga but to the rest of the network in 10/100?

To answer your last question first, TCP/IP automatically adjusts
to the rate of the slowest link in the path. AFAIK, this is based
on packet loss - network speed is adjusted when packets are lost.
Transfer speeds ramp up, until a packet is lost somewhere in
transit.

For your networking question, there is some background here:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/39061

You could start experimenting, by connecting the two computers
directly to one another. Assign IP addresses manually, then
experiment with setting up a "share", or use FTP, to see what
kinds of speeds are possible. You could do experiments with
different packet sizes or window sizes, and perhaps have
a look on some of the older web sites that talked about tweaks
for network performance. The delay between computers will be
low, but perhaps there are some tweaks that will improve performance.

A cheap solution, would be to expand that experiment, by putting
a 10/100 NIC card in one of the two gigabit computers, so you
could connect to the rest of your network. You could run ICS in
the computer with two network interfaces. (The only reason I'm
even mentioning this solution, is if large packet size turns out
to be advantageous in your first experiment, then perhaps ICS
will allow packets on either side of ICS to be different sizes ?
I somehow doubt that a cheap switch would allow that, but perhaps
the fragment bit handles all of that automatically, when packets
head for the Internet.)

1Gb/s 100Mb/s
GbE #1 -------- GbE #2 ----------- Netgear

http://www.practicallynetworked.co [...] cs/ics.htm

There are some cheap gigabit ethernet switches, like $80 for a
four or five port switch, but the connected nodes are all on the
same subnet. A real switch would cost $750 or so, but supports
subnets (a layer 3 switch). I don't know anything about switching,
so I'll stop right there :-)

HTH,
Paul

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-1711040232170001@192.168.1.177...
> In article <m3sm79noay.fsf@newsguy.com>, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have one mobo with gigabit lan (K8V SE) and am about to setup
>> another machine with the gigabit cabability....also asus but
>> P4C800E-Deluxe.
>>
>> I've never used gigabit lan but do have the adaptor on K8V working as
>> regular 10/100 with my gateway (A Netgear FVS318 router/firewall).
>> This is on a home setup with DSL Internet access.
>>
>> Once I get the new machine setup in the lan I'm going to want to use
>> the gigabit speed between those two machines. Both are equiped for
>> video editing and will need to share massive video files measuring in
>> 10s of Gb.
>>
>> I'm sort of lost as to how to set this up. I guess I'll need a hub
>> that also talks gigabit?. My four home machines could be Something
>> like this simple diagram:
>>
>> [INTERNET]
>> |
>> DSL modem
>> |
>> Netgear router/firewall (FVS318.. not gigabit)
>> | | |
>> 10/100 | | | 10/100
>> MCH1 | MCH2
>> |
>> | 10/100
>> GIGABIT capable hub
>> | |
>> Gigabit GIGABIT
>> MCH3 MCH4
>>
>> That is, an extra hub to pass the gigabit traffic between the two
>> Gigabit capable machines but it speaks 10/100 on the upstream side.
>>
>> Or am I really over complicating this? Can these gigabit adapters
>> talk to each other in giga but to the rest of the network in 10/100?
>
> To answer your last question first, TCP/IP automatically adjusts
> to the rate of the slowest link in the path. AFAIK, this is based
> on packet loss - network speed is adjusted when packets are lost.
> Transfer speeds ramp up, until a packet is lost somewhere in
> transit.
>
> For your networking question, there is some background here:
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/39061
>
> You could start experimenting, by connecting the two computers
> directly to one another. Assign IP addresses manually, then
> experiment with setting up a "share", or use FTP, to see what
> kinds of speeds are possible. You could do experiments with
> different packet sizes or window sizes, and perhaps have
> a look on some of the older web sites that talked about tweaks
> for network performance. The delay between computers will be
> low, but perhaps there are some tweaks that will improve performance.
>
> A cheap solution, would be to expand that experiment, by putting
> a 10/100 NIC card in one of the two gigabit computers, so you
> could connect to the rest of your network. You could run ICS in
> the computer with two network interfaces. (The only reason I'm
> even mentioning this solution, is if large packet size turns out
> to be advantageous in your first experiment, then perhaps ICS
> will allow packets on either side of ICS to be different sizes ?
> I somehow doubt that a cheap switch would allow that, but perhaps
> the fragment bit handles all of that automatically, when packets
> head for the Internet.)
>
> 1Gb/s 100Mb/s
> GbE #1 -------- GbE #2 ----------- Netgear
>
> http://www.practicallynetworked.co [...] cs/ics.htm
>
> There are some cheap gigabit ethernet switches, like $80 for a
> four or five port switch, but the connected nodes are all on the
> same subnet. A real switch would cost $750 or so, but supports
> subnets (a layer 3 switch). I don't know anything about switching,
> so I'll stop right there :-)
>
> HTH,
> Paul

Actually the cheap switches can have multiple subnets running over them as
they would be unmanaged and not have any network address assigned they are
about as bumb as you can get in switch land.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:


[...]

> A cheap solution, would be to expand that experiment, by putting
> a 10/100 NIC card in one of the two gigabit computers, so you
> could connect to the rest of your network. You could run ICS in
> the computer with two network interfaces. (The only reason I'm
> even mentioning this solution, is if large packet size turns out
> to be advantageous in your first experiment, then perhaps ICS
> will allow packets on either side of ICS to be different sizes ?
> I somehow doubt that a cheap switch would allow that, but perhaps
> the fragment bit handles all of that automatically, when packets
> head for the Internet.)

checking the ics link I see it doesn't cover xp. Just up to w2k.
Also it says that ICS is pretty much of a pain in the butt.

I hadn't thought far enough to realize how a 2nd nic would fit in but
now that you mentioned it ... maybe a 2nd nic in each for lan on 10/100 and
a wire between just those two on gigabit.

Can one direct traffic as one pleases per device? I'm thinking even
with 2 nics there is still the problem of directing specific traffic
to one or the other. Or is that what ICS does?

Anyone here have actual experience in setting something like this up.

I'd rather have a recipe to follow if possible.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <uoehvlx43.fsf@newsguy.com>, reader@newsguy.com wrote:

> nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > A cheap solution, would be to expand that experiment, by putting
> > a 10/100 NIC card in one of the two gigabit computers, so you
> > could connect to the rest of your network. You could run ICS in
> > the computer with two network interfaces. (The only reason I'm
> > even mentioning this solution, is if large packet size turns out
> > to be advantageous in your first experiment, then perhaps ICS
> > will allow packets on either side of ICS to be different sizes ?
> > I somehow doubt that a cheap switch would allow that, but perhaps
> > the fragment bit handles all of that automatically, when packets
> > head for the Internet.)
>
> checking the ics link I see it doesn't cover xp. Just up to w2k.
> Also it says that ICS is pretty much of a pain in the butt.
>
> I hadn't thought far enough to realize how a 2nd nic would fit in but
> now that you mentioned it ... maybe a 2nd nic in each for lan on 10/100 and
> a wire between just those two on gigabit.
>
> Can one direct traffic as one pleases per device? I'm thinking even
> with 2 nics there is still the problem of directing specific traffic
> to one or the other. Or is that what ICS does?
>
> Anyone here have actual experience in setting something like this up.
>
> I'd rather have a recipe to follow if possible.

Traffic is routed by address, and what you propose, looks like
it has a loop in it. There would be two paths to get to the same
destination. To get from a node connected to the Netgear, there
are two paths to get to GbE #2. I would think cutting the loop
would be necessary, so the Gig switch would be a better solution.

Netgear
/ \
/ \
GbE #1 ------GbE #2

I've been looking for a tutorial on GbE networking, but haven't
found anything yet. Here is a paper comparing what happens when
the Gigabit Ethernet is on a 32 bit PCI bus or 64 bit PCI bus,
and also the effect of MTU (large packet 1500 to 9000 byte
packets - aka jumbo frames). This will save on doing the
experiments. Your P4C800-E is ideally equipped for GbE
(266MB/sec CSA bus), but the K8V SE will let you down to some
extent, due to the PCI bus.

http://www.cs.uni.edu/~gray/gig-ov [...] sln-lcn.ps

I find it interesting how the Linux drivers find differences
when playing with the above mentioned hardware parameters,
whereas the Win2K drivers make all that tweaking useless.
What that does mean, is if you are using Windows for the
computers, you don't have to worry about buying a GbE
switch with jumbo frame capability, as it just wouldn't buy
you anything.

This product review doesn't suggest there is any setup to
worry about. Too bad the author never considered using
RAM Disks at either end of the link for speed testing.
It would be nice to factor the storage system out for
benching, so you know how much potential GbE offers.

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com [...] 08W_1.html

Someone gets 36MB/sec transfer to disk here:
http://forums.storagereview.net/in [...] =2&t=17036

What I've concluded so far, is GbE is so low tech, it isn't
deserving of any web articles/reviews :-) Maybe my search
terms aren't working...

Paul

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:

> In article <uoehvlx43.fsf@newsguy.com>, reader@newsguy.com wrote:

[...] snipped interesting discussion and tips/urls

>
> What I've concluded so far, is GbE is so low tech, it isn't
> deserving of any web articles/reviews :-) Maybe my search
> terms aren't working...

I was wondering if that might not be the case too...

I asked a similar question on a Canopus forum. A video editing and
hardware co. (where I suspected some of the participants might be
using gigabit setups). One fellow replied who is using it and
indicates it is pretty simple. According to him you can just insert a
cheap gigabit switch for the two machines to talk thru and connect a
10/100 router or whatever to it.

(Canopus forums seems to be down just now but the url is:
http://forum.canopus.com/
On the main list of forums, choose `The pit' and look for a subject
line about gigabit stuff if you want to see the reply.)

But as I understood, it would look like this:

INTERNET
|
DSL Modem
|
Netgear router
| | |
mch1 | mch2
|
GIGABIT SWITCH
| |
Giga nic giga nic
mch3 mch4

I've responded to him asking if above is what he has but haven't seen
a reply yet.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

reader@newsguy.com writes:

[...]

> (Canopus forums seems to be down just now but the url is:
> http://forum.canopus.com/
> On the main list of forums, choose `The pit' and look for a subject
> line about gigabit stuff if you want to see the reply.)

Its up now but not sure you can hit this without some kind of login:
http://forum.canopus.com/showthrea [...] o=&fpart=1

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <uis83xigu.fsf@newsguy.com>, reader@newsguy.com wrote:

> nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:
>
> > In article <uoehvlx43.fsf@newsguy.com>, reader@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> [...] snipped interesting discussion and tips/urls
>
> >
> > What I've concluded so far, is GbE is so low tech, it isn't
> > deserving of any web articles/reviews :-) Maybe my search
> > terms aren't working...
>
> I was wondering if that might not be the case too...
>
> I asked a similar question on a Canopus forum. A video editing and
> hardware co. (where I suspected some of the participants might be
> using gigabit setups). One fellow replied who is using it and
> indicates it is pretty simple. According to him you can just insert a
> cheap gigabit switch for the two machines to talk thru and connect a
> 10/100 router or whatever to it.
>
> (Canopus forums seems to be down just now but the url is:
> http://forum.canopus.com/
> On the main list of forums, choose `The pit' and look for a subject
> line about gigabit stuff if you want to see the reply.)
>
> But as I understood, it would look like this:
>
> INTERNET
> |
> DSL Modem
> |
> Netgear router
> | | |
> mch1 | mch2
> |
> GIGABIT SWITCH
> | |
> Giga nic giga nic
> mch3 mch4
>
> I've responded to him asking if above is what he has but haven't seen
> a reply yet.

If Windows is being used on the gigabit machines, then that would
seem to be the right way to connect them. No need to modify the MTU
and no need to worry about jumbo frames support (larger than 1500 byte
packets). Let the experiments begin...

Paul

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

The cheap switches that I have seen don't care about loops and will pick one
link as a primary to route all the traffic.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-1811040201120001@192.168.1.177...
> In article <uoehvlx43.fsf@newsguy.com>, reader@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>> nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > A cheap solution, would be to expand that experiment, by putting
>> > a 10/100 NIC card in one of the two gigabit computers, so you
>> > could connect to the rest of your network. You could run ICS in
>> > the computer with two network interfaces. (The only reason I'm
>> > even mentioning this solution, is if large packet size turns out
>> > to be advantageous in your first experiment, then perhaps ICS
>> > will allow packets on either side of ICS to be different sizes ?
>> > I somehow doubt that a cheap switch would allow that, but perhaps
>> > the fragment bit handles all of that automatically, when packets
>> > head for the Internet.)
>>
>> checking the ics link I see it doesn't cover xp. Just up to w2k.
>> Also it says that ICS is pretty much of a pain in the butt.
>>
>> I hadn't thought far enough to realize how a 2nd nic would fit in but
>> now that you mentioned it ... maybe a 2nd nic in each for lan on 10/100
>> and
>> a wire between just those two on gigabit.
>>
>> Can one direct traffic as one pleases per device? I'm thinking even
>> with 2 nics there is still the problem of directing specific traffic
>> to one or the other. Or is that what ICS does?
>>
>> Anyone here have actual experience in setting something like this up.
>>
>> I'd rather have a recipe to follow if possible.
>
> Traffic is routed by address, and what you propose, looks like
> it has a loop in it. There would be two paths to get to the same
> destination. To get from a node connected to the Netgear, there
> are two paths to get to GbE #2. I would think cutting the loop
> would be necessary, so the Gig switch would be a better solution.
>
> Netgear
> / \
> / \
> GbE #1 ------GbE #2
>
> I've been looking for a tutorial on GbE networking, but haven't
> found anything yet. Here is a paper comparing what happens when
> the Gigabit Ethernet is on a 32 bit PCI bus or 64 bit PCI bus,
> and also the effect of MTU (large packet 1500 to 9000 byte
> packets - aka jumbo frames). This will save on doing the
> experiments. Your P4C800-E is ideally equipped for GbE
> (266MB/sec CSA bus), but the K8V SE will let you down to some
> extent, due to the PCI bus.
>
> http://www.cs.uni.edu/~gray/gig-ov [...] sln-lcn.ps
>
> I find it interesting how the Linux drivers find differences
> when playing with the above mentioned hardware parameters,
> whereas the Win2K drivers make all that tweaking useless.
> What that does mean, is if you are using Windows for the
> computers, you don't have to worry about buying a GbE
> switch with jumbo frame capability, as it just wouldn't buy
> you anything.
>
> This product review doesn't suggest there is any setup to
> worry about. Too bad the author never considered using
> RAM Disks at either end of the link for speed testing.
> It would be nice to factor the storage system out for
> benching, so you know how much potential GbE offers.
>
> http://www.extremeoverclocking.com [...] 08W_1.html
>
> Someone gets 36MB/sec transfer to disk here:
> http://forums.storagereview.net/in [...] =2&t=17036
>
> What I've concluded so far, is GbE is so low tech, it isn't
> deserving of any web articles/reviews :-) Maybe my search
> terms aren't working...
>
> Paul

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> writes:

> The cheap switches that I have seen don't care about loops and will pick one
> link as a primary to route all the traffic.

Any idea how the `picking' takes place?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

nospam@needed.com (Paul) writes:


[...]

> Traffic is routed by address, and what you propose, looks like
> it has a loop in it. There would be two paths to get to the same
> destination. To get from a node connected to the Netgear, there
> are two paths to get to GbE #2. I would think cutting the loop
> would be necessary, so the Gig switch would be a better solution.
>
> Netgear
> / \
> / \
> GbE #1 ------GbE #2
>
> I've been looking for a tutorial on GbE networking, but haven't
> found anything yet. Here is a paper comparing what happens when
> the Gigabit Ethernet is on a 32 bit PCI bus or 64 bit PCI bus,
> and also the effect of MTU (large packet 1500 to 9000 byte
> packets - aka jumbo frames). This will save on doing the
> experiments. Your P4C800-E is ideally equipped for GbE
> (266MB/sec CSA bus), but the K8V SE will let you down to some
> extent, due to the PCI bus.
>
> http://www.cs.uni.edu/~gray/gig-ov [...] sln-lcn.ps
>

[...]

> What I've concluded so far, is GbE is so low tech, it isn't
> deserving of any web articles/reviews :-) Maybe my search
> terms aren't working...

Maybe not, in fact the url you posted
http://www.cs.uni.edu/~gray/gig-ov [...] sln-lcn.ps
Indicates its quite a serious problem getting good performance from a
gigabit lan setup.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:32:05 -0600, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>I have one mobo with gigabit lan (K8V SE) and am about to setup
>another machine with the gigabit cabability....also asus but
>P4C800E-Deluxe.
>
>I've never used gigabit lan but do have the adaptor on K8V working as
>regular 10/100 with my gateway (A Netgear FVS318 router/firewall).
>This is on a home setup with DSL Internet access.
>
>Once I get the new machine setup in the lan I'm going to want to use
>the gigabit speed between those two machines. Both are equiped for
>video editing and will need to share massive video files measuring in
>10s of Gb.
>
>I'm sort of lost as to how to set this up. I guess I'll need a hub
>that also talks gigabit?. My four home machines could be Something
>like this simple diagram:
>
> [INTERNET]
> |
> DSL modem
> |
> Netgear router/firewall (FVS318.. not gigabit)
> | | |
> 10/100 | | | 10/100
> MCH1 | MCH2
> |
> | 10/100
> GIGABIT capable hub
> | |
> Gigabit GIGABIT
> MCH3 MCH4
>
>That is, an extra hub to pass the gigabit traffic between the two
>Gigabit capable machines but it speaks 10/100 on the upstream side.
>
>Or am I really over complicating this? Can these gigabit adapters
>talk to each other in giga but to the rest of the network in 10/100?

It seems to me you guys are overly complicating this discussion.

I have 4 devices in my network, 1 is an older PC with only 10/100, one
is a GPS clock with 10 meg only and 2 PCs have gig ports on the
motherboard.

My cable modem connects to the WAN port on my Zyxel router. The
router has a 4 port switch but I only use one port to connect to my
Netgear GS-108 switch where all devices plug in.

All PCs use DHCP from the router except the clock which is manually
assigned a 192.168.1.50 IP and the router hands out IPs in the
192.168.1.32/28 range.

Everything happily talks to the Internet and to each other at whatever
the highest speeds the devices can support. The 2 PCs with gig speed
can talk to each other at high speeds and I regularly send video files
back and forth at far higher speeds then when I only had a 10/100
switch. When they talk to the older PC, it's only at 100 meg and then
the old clock can only manage 10. The GS-108 switch works fine with
all of them as it's supposed to. The switch only cost about $100 so
we are not talking lots of money here.

So, plug your Netgear router into the gig switch, everything else into
the switch and you are done. The switch takes care of the speed
differences, that's what the switch is for. All run full duplex on my
net but the clock which is only 10 half. The switch is designed to
connect 10/100/1000 devices together.

TCP/IP is designed to flow the traffic as fast as it sees the acks
coming back. The GS-108 does not handle jumbo frames but I don't
really care. The speed is many times greater then is was before I
took out my 10/100 meg switch. I did nothing to Win XP for this, MTU
is still at 1500.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

crypto <spam@spam.org> writes:

>
> It seems to me you guys are overly complicating this discussion.
>
> I have 4 devices in my network, 1 is an older PC with only 10/100, one
> is a GPS clock with 10 meg only and 2 PCs have gig ports on the
> motherboard.

[...]

Thanks for the confirmation... I had found that out from one of the
video forums too. Nice to here it really that easy.