# What is the fastest connection between PC and File Server?



## bud951 (Jan 19, 2011)

I am currently building an old gaming rig (DFI NF4) with an Areca RAID 6 card and 4x 2tb WD drives as a file server and DL machine. What is the best and fastest way to connect my main rig to it? My RAID card does not have an external port. Should I invest in one that does? Is gigabit LAN my fastest option since it will be hooked into my router? Should I look into an esata expansion card? Is it possible to connect the two computers that way? The file server does not have built in esata but my new pc does. Info appreciated.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 19, 2011)

the only methods to connect the PC's is via ethernet.

you cant use e-sata or anything like that to link PC's.



Yes, gigabit is your best choice... but if you insist on connecting via your router, you're gunna need a router with gigabit ports. few have that.


----------



## bud951 (Jan 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the only methods to connect the PC's is via ethernet.
> 
> you cant use e-sata or anything like that to link PC's.
> 
> ...



Which router should I get? Would it be faster to connect the two pc's directly and then connect the file server to the internet?


----------



## qubit (Jan 19, 2011)

bud951 said:


> Which router should I get? Would it be faster to connect the two pc's directly and then connect the file server to the internet?



Why would you want to connect to PCs on your internal network via the internet?

Your router already has a DHCP server to hand out IP addresses, so simply put a gigabit switch in and connect everything to that.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 19, 2011)

get a gige switch, connect your router, pc, fileserver to it, done


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> get a gige switch, connect your router, pc, fileserver to it, done



This.  That way you don't need a Gigabit router.


----------



## bud951 (Jan 19, 2011)

So using the gigabit switch, the two pc's will transfer files faster between each other and both pc's will be connected to the internet through the router my cable company gave me? If this is correct, what is a good gigabit switch for the money? Thanks for the info.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 19, 2011)

bud951 said:


> So using the gigabit switch, the two pc's will transfer files faster between each other and both pc's will be connected to the internet through the router my cable company gave me? If this is correct, what is a good gigabit switch for the money? Thanks for the info.



Yeah, all the internal traffic will go over the Gigabit switch, only the traffic going to the internet will go to the router.

I've used a few of these in customer's networks and they are great for the money: ASUS GX-D1081 10/100/1000Mbps Power-Saving Gigabit...

Whatever you get, make sure it supports Jumbo Frames.


----------



## qubit (Jan 19, 2011)

I use a Netgear 8-port gigabit switch and it works fine. I don't know what model number it is, but it's one of their blue industrial looking ones.

EDIT: It's the GS108.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 19, 2011)

I would buy this. You can get the 8 port for $59, but you're only connecting 3 pc's.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 24, 2011)

saritayadav said:


> using router ,and hub you get a better connection..



erm no you would get a worse connetion with a hub. any gige switch with jumbo packets will do you just fine.



connect both pc's to the switch and the switch to the router. DHCP will allocate the IPs to the PCs, thats all you need to do


----------



## theeldest (Jan 24, 2011)

*Really Really Fast*

I'm surprised no one has brought this up.

As far as simple solutions are concerned, Gigabit ethernet is going to be the fastest.


If you're just looking for outright fastest that won't get saturated you'll need to team a few ethernet ports. (uses multiple ports to achieve higher speeds). This requires some pretty specific hardware/software at each point of the network.

This is the switch I use: NETGEAR GS608 10/100/1000Mbps Switch with Jumbo Fr...

I do not currently run teamed network ports. I'm not sure if any switch will handle teamed ports but the ability is technically part of the standard 802.3x spec. (so it should work on any standards compliant post-2008 switch).

The easiest NICS to use are Intel's. (from what I hear). They have made some pretty good drivers to handle the port teaming as the capability is not part of a standard windows package.

These are the two cards I would consider:
Dual Port card - Intel E1G42ETBLK 10/ 100/ 1000Mbps PCI-Express x16...
Quad port card - Intel E1G44ET2BLK 10/ 100/ 1000Mbps PCI-Express Gi...

You would need a card on the NAS and computer end.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 24, 2011)

im looking to do the same sorta thing with my amd a79a-s foxconn mobo that has 2 ports. what does having 2 enthernet ports on my pc let me do speed wize.


----------



## theeldest (Jan 24, 2011)

@catnipkiller

Depending on software, you can "team" the ports. Teaming would take two 1 Gig ports and make them act like a single 2 Gig port. But you need the same thing on the NAS and PC end of the connection otherwise it's not doing anything. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation


----------



## theeldest (Jan 24, 2011)

Also, just to be sure it's explicitly mentioned:

You need fast drives on both ends as well. Right now I have 5 drives in RAID5 in my server. They can push data at 450MB/s (3.6 Gbit). This initially sounds like a perfect reason to get a couple dual port NICs for teaming but on the PC end I've got a single drive. I can write--at most--80MB/s (Less than 1Gbit).

Before I spend any money on NICs, I need to upgrade my PC hard drive(s).


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 24, 2011)

WHY ARE YOU GUYS going on about Jumbo Frames? Do you have any idea what this is? It makes fractional differences, requires compatible hardware all round, and requires setting up the network cards on the PCs too. Why this unnecessary complexity for a guy who is clearly a beginner for performance gain that will be less than 5%?

Keep the advice simple.

1x Gigabit switch needed
3x CAT6 ethernet cable
Plug it all together
Full stop


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> WHY ARE YOU GUYS going on about Jumbo Frames? Do you have any idea what this is? It makes fractional differences, requires compatible hardware all round, and requires setting up the network cards on the PCs too. Why this unnecessary complexity for a guy who is clearly a beginner for performance gain that will be less than 5%?
> 
> Keep the advice simple.
> 
> ...



Actually, it makes a rather substantial difference.  If he doesn't have the network cards that support it, he should still get a switch that does for future expansion.  And there really isn't any configuration or complexity, if everything supports it then it works, if not then he has a switch that will work if the NICs are every upgraded in the future.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 25, 2011)

Rubbish. Take two PCs, with no contention (ie nothing else, just the 2 PCs) and the same switch and same NICs, and configure Jumbo on or Jumbo off, you will not see more than 5% difference.

ANYONE who says there is a bigger difference than that is not comparing the same switch, or the same NICs, or is confusing Jumbo Frames with full-duplex.

It is known that *sometimes* a person has observed a bigger speedbump but that is due to a peculiarity in the network stack drivers and there is no physical or logical reason for this.  This has been the case with some early linux drivers and low-powered ARM based NAS boxes where the CPU utilisation couldnt handle the transfer. But it is a specialist case. You won't find this on windows or with the CPU horsepower of a DFI NF4 based system.

>> Well, that's my experience at least, and I would never advise an average PC user to play with JF
>> nt, if you have other evidence, I'd be happy to see it...

*edit* just googled - something recent and uptodate - and found this: http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php...mparison-testing-with-ip-storage-and-vmotion/


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> im looking to do the same sorta thing with my amd a79a-s foxconn mobo that has 2 ports. what does having 2 enthernet ports on my pc let me do speed wize.



it makes none. its not for speed boosts.


even if you set up teaming, its still two seperate connections - it cant make one transfer faster.


----------



## qubit (Jan 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> it makes none. its not for speed boosts.
> 
> 
> even if you set up teaming, its still two seperate connections - it cant make one transfer faster.



I've been wondering what teaming is for. So it's not SLI for networks then, shame lol.

Is it to enhance reliability then?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2011)

qubit said:


> I've been wondering what teaming is for. So it's not SLI for networks then, shame lol.
> 
> Is it to enhance reliability then?



yes. Mainly to connect to different segments of a network in case one goes down.


you can also use it for ICS, but mostly its worthless.


----------



## theeldest (Jan 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> yes. Mainly to connect to different segments of a network in case one goes down.
> 
> you can also use it for ICS, but mostly its worthless.



In my experience,  in real-world environments, nic teaming is most often used with virtual environments where the performance aspects is the primary goal and redundancy/FT being secondary.


A bit more clarification: NIC teaming gives you a "wider" pipe, not a faster one. It allows more connections to the system, but the max speed of a single connection is still limited by the single-port performance. There is only a performance increase of the application is 'multi-threaded' (this is an oversimplification but you should get the point).

If you are only connecting a single computer to a NAS, I'm not 100% sure how file transfers are handled, but I'm pretty sure none of the standard sharing protocols are 'multithreaded'. If you have multiple systems simultaneously connecting to a NAS, then teamed NICs will give a performance benefit (obviously, certain assumptions exist).


----------



## qubit (Jan 25, 2011)

@theeldest

Nice, answer, thanks. 

So, it's really a capacity boost, if I understand correctly. I think to draw an analogy with batteries:

You have a 10Ah battery and a 20Ah battery. They are both 12V, but the 20Ah will give out more power before running flat.

Similarly, they can be "teamed up" (connected in parallel) to make a virtual 30Ah superbattery and the output is still 12V.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 25, 2011)

Yup, between two servers, each with four teamed gigabit ports the maximum sustained transfer was 115MB/s - same as when it wasn't teamed. I could however set up transfers on multiple machines to the server to utilize more of the link.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 29, 2011)

is there a speed test for moving files? from one pc to the next?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 29, 2011)

Pick a big file, move it between computers, and time it.  I'm sure there are better ways, but this is what I always do.



Completely Bonkers said:


> Rubbish. Take two PCs, with no contention (ie nothing else, just the 2 PCs) and the same switch and same NICs, and configure Jumbo on or Jumbo off, you will not see more than 5% difference.
> 
> ANYONE who says there is a bigger difference than that is not comparing the same switch, or the same NICs, or is confusing Jumbo Frames with full-duplex.
> 
> ...



Rubbish, 5% is a pretty noticeable difference when transferring TBs worth of data.  He asked for the fastest connection, and Jumbo Frames is the answer.

I don't really see any argument against getting a jumbo frames capable switch, why are you even arguing this? Switches with jumbo frames aren't any more expensive, in fact the cheapest gigabit switch on newegg right now supports Jumbo Frames, you actually have to spend more to get one without the feature.  And if the network isn't set up properly to take advantage of the jumbo frames, then the feature just isn't used.  There isn't any extra complexity here like you claim, you just plug everything in like normal.  If jumbo frames works, then it works, if not you get exactly the same thing as you are saying to go with anyway.  So why argue for getting a switch without jumbo frames?  Why not make sure to get one with jumbo frames, so if jumbo frames does work that is great, and you get the speed benefits.  If it doesn't, no big deal.


----------



## qubit (Jan 29, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Pick a big file, move it between computers, and time it.  I'm sure there are better ways, but this is what I always do.



This isn't a benchmark, but one can use NetMeter to check the instantaneous throughput of the network. Ultimately, the OP is gonna be limited to the performance of his network and this utility will let him monitor its performance in real time.

It's got loads of other features, too.







This free little utility is so good, that I put it on every PC I have and use it a _lot_.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 29, 2011)

Jesus.  just get a few of these http://www.fibernetworktools.com/ca...lectronics&SubCat=NIC Cards: 100Mb&StudentNo=...

call it a day.  Fiber baby.  We use something like this to transmit 3D ultrasounds from one office to the next...


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 29, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Pick a big file, move it between computers, and time it.  I'm sure there are better ways, but this is what I always do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rubbish. Telling someone _it is necessary_ to invest and jump through hoops for 5% with significant additional complexity is totally misguided. You are making him spend more time worrying about,and setting up, jumbo frames than the benefit he will ever gain. Let the guy buy a switch, cables, and plug it together without having to put jumbo into the equation.

When are you going to trade those GPUs of yours to gain an extra 5%?


----------



## xBruce88x (Jan 29, 2011)

just wondering... is this teaming thing the same as bridging 2 connections? (the windows option that lets you "bridge" network devices)


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jan 29, 2011)

xBruce88x said:


> just wondering... is this teaming thing the same as bridging 2 connections? (the windows option that lets you "bridge" network devices)



No,

Bridging makes your computer act as a switch so that you can connect one port to a switch and the other to another device.  Teaming connects both ports to the switch thereby increasing the throughput.


----------



## xBruce88x (Jan 29, 2011)

ok that's what i was thinking but wasn't sure, thnx


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 30, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Rubbish.



Since you seem to like to be rude and call others people's comments rubbish, without knowing what you are talking about I'm goint to point out all the "rubbish" in your post.  Of course I point most of this out already in the post you quoted, but you obviously didn't read any of it...



Completely Bonkers said:


> Telling someone _it is necessary_  to invest



Rubbish, there is no "invest".  As I point out, switches with Jumbo Frames are cheaper at this point.



Completely Bonkers said:


> and jump through hoops for 5% with significant additional complexity is totally misguided



Rubbish.

There is no jumping through hoops, there is no additional complexity.  In fact the setup is no different than if he got a switch without jumbo frames.  There is nothing extra.  So suggesting to buy a switch without jumbo frames is misguided.



Completely Bonkers said:


> You are making him spend more time worrying about,and setting up, jumbo frames than the benefit he will ever gain.



5 Seconds to look at the specs of the switch to make sure it supports Jumbo Frames?  Yeah, I don't think that is an amount of time worth worrying about, you do?  And there is no extra setup time, so again...rubbish.



Completely Bonkers said:


> Let the guy buy a switch, cables, and plug it together without having to put jumbo into the equation.



Or he can make sure to get a jumbo frame router, spend the extra 5 seconds when purchasing, and gain the 5% benefit if possible.  Why are you still arguing this?

More rubbish from you.



Completely Bonkers said:


> When are you going to trade those GPUs of yours to gain an extra 5%?http://foalcam.net/smiley/smiley2/bonk.gif



Rubbish.

Why do you think I'm currently selling the GTX460s?  That point aside, upgrading something you already have for 5% extra is a lot different than buying something that is 5% better right away for the same price with no extra hassle or complication.


----------



## qubit (Jan 30, 2011)

@newtekie1

From what you explained in post 27, getting  a jumbo frames enabled switch is a no-brainer. I can't believe anyone can dispute this.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> @newtekie1
> 
> From what you explained in post 27, getting  a jumbo frames enabled switch is a no-brainer. I can't believe anyone can dispute this.



Yeah...but apparently no extra work, no extra time required, no extra cost*, and a performance improvement isn't enough to warrant getting a router with jumbo frames...

Hell, I thought free performance was something most members on this forum were all about...

*Actually at this point, they are cheaper.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 30, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> Jesus.  just get a few of these http://www.fibernetworktools.com/ca...lectronics&SubCat=NIC Cards: 100Mb&StudentNo=...
> 
> call it a day.  Fiber baby.  We use something like this to transmit 3D ultrasounds from one office to the next...



lol... i think you missed the part where these fiber cards are 100Mbps, not gigabit or faster.... so they will be slower then onboard ethernet, and 4 times the price 




if you really want to spend some money on network performance, then you want some of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfiniBand
but they are not cheap ... your looking at etleast a few hundred for 2 - 4Gbps... 

at witch point the only storage device in your pc able to keep up would be Ram.      unless you had a very large HDD raid array... or a very fast SSD.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 30, 2011)

just to be a total noob how would i tell if my switch the Dlink dgs -1005G has "jumbo frams" support?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> just to be a total noob how would i tell if my switch the Dlink dgs -1005G has "jumbo frams" support?



google its specs.

remember that the network cards need to support it as well, to get any benefit.


----------



## v12dock (Jan 30, 2011)

How about 20GB fiber


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 30, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Since you seem to like to be rude and call others people's comments rubbish, without knowing what you are talking about I'm goint to point out all the "rubbish" in your post.  blah blah



Are you blinded by your need to be "on the soap box" that you find it necessary to start some kind of personal tirade? It is you, sir, that is being rude.

I refer you again to my earlier advice



> Why are you guys going on about Jumbo Frames? Do you have any idea what this is? It makes fractional differences, requires compatible hardware all round, and requires setting up the network cards on the PCs too. Why this unnecessary complexity for a guy who is clearly a beginner for a performance gain that will be less than 5%?
> 
> Keep the advice simple.
> 
> ...



and



> Telling someone it is necessary to invest and jump through hoops for 5% with significant additional complexity is totally misguided. You are making him spend more time worrying about, and setting up, jumbo frames than the benefit he will ever gain. Let the guy buy a switch, cables, and plug it together without having to put jumbo into the equation.



In no place did I say OP should look for a switch that *does not support *jumbo frames. What kind of cuckoo planet are you on to say that I made that statement?

I think you might have missed an important point in this whole discussion: to understand the OP's current knowledge level, his usage model, and what else is sitting on his network.

If you want to use this thread as an opportunity to discuss the merits of Jumbo frames, then let's add some objective information/discussion.

1./ How much difference is Jumbo frames going to make to a DL server and file server?  How about an example of copying a 500MB ISO, and a directory with 500 jpgs, with and without Jumbo frames
2./ How does latency increase with Jumbo frames and how will this impact his network?
3./ What happens with his router and other devices that do not support Jumbo. How does this now affect performance?
4./ How much time does it take to understand all this, and get it set up properly. Time = money. What was the return on investment for the OP

If you have some good answers to those four questions, then I will find your answer constructive, helpful and informative.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 30, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Are you blinded by your need to be "on the soap box" that you find it necessary to start some kind of personal tirade? It is you, sir, that is being rude.
> 
> I refer you again to my earlier advice
> 
> ...



When you start calling my suggestion to make sure the switch supports jumbo frames "rubbish" and making up total BS about it being more complex, that is you telling him to not buy a switch with jumbo frames, and doing so in a rude manner.  You have totally made up lies, complete and totaly lies and BS, to make jubo frames look like some horrible thing that he shouldn't get.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2011)

calm down ladies, you're both posting some pointless crap right now.


jumbo frames arent likely to help the OP, but it doesnt cost much more and he DID ask for the fastest possible connection.


----------



## qubit (Jan 30, 2011)

Mussels said:


> calm down ladies, you're both posting some pointless crap right now.
> 
> 
> jumbo frames arent likely to help the OP, *but it doesnt cost much more* and he DID ask for the fastest possible connection.



It actually costs _less_ according to NT.  A definite no-brainer.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> It actually costs _less_ according to NT.  A definite no-brainer.



it could cost less, yeah. JF's arent exactly new technology, there is no price premium on them any more.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 31, 2011)

Ok i have both my ports hooked into my Dlink dgs -1005G switch, witch has jumbo support. and i also have my router and my other pc hooked into the switch. should i keep both ports hooked into the switch or have one in the switch and one hooked into my router? all i'm looking to do is move files from my main pc to the other both have 2x hhd in raid 0 just don't know if i have it hooked up rite.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> Ok i have both my ports hooked into my Dlink dgs -1005G switch, witch has jumbo support. and i also have my router and my other pc hooked into the switch. should i keep both ports hooked into the switch or have one in the switch and one hooked into my router? all i'm looking to do is move files from my main pc to the other both have 2x hhd in raid 0 just don't know if i have it hooked up rite.



draw us a nasty MS paint picture so we get a better idea

dont forget to label them with what speeds they can do (giga or 100Mb)


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 31, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> Ok i have both my ports hooked into my Dlink dgs -1005G switch, witch has jumbo support. and i also have my router and my other pc hooked into the switch. should i keep both ports hooked into the switch or have one in the switch and one hooked into my router? all i'm looking to do is move files from my main pc to the other both have 2x hhd in raid 0 just don't know if i have it hooked up rite.






If distance is not a problem for any of the devices, i would connect every device to the switch. 


then connect the Switch to the router.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 31, 2011)

*u want nasty?*


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2011)

that setup works fine, and gives you good speed.

why two connections from PC1? you'll get no benefit.


----------



## catnipkiller (Jan 31, 2011)

was just trying it out when i would transfer a file the connection 2 is being used and connection 1 would be the same load lol so i don't know if it helps so should i just run it off 1 cable?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> was just trying it out when i would transfer a file the connection 2 is being used and connection 1 would be the same load lol so i don't know if it helps so should i just run it off 1 cable?



no it doesnt help at all unless you set up teaming, and even then it only helps in very specific, uncommon circumstances . drop back to the one cable.


----------



## catnipkiller (Feb 1, 2011)

its showing around 50-100mbps upload but the other pc was only showing 20-70mbps when moving a game over the home group thing. but its still alot faster then my external hhd


----------



## theeldest (May 10, 2011)

Hey, sorry for resurrecting an old thread but I found a nifty tool some here may like (and is relevant to this original post).

http://linhost.info/2010/02/iperf-on-windows/

It'll let you test the network performance outside of transferring files. You'll install the program (it's very small) on each system and they'll connect and benchmark. That gives you a 'best case scenario' for performance. It'll also let you know if speed problems are network related or part of the file transfer protocol you're using.

Again, sorry for the zombie thread.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2011)

10 gigabit over CAT7 is the fastest copper means of networking.  Fiber can go faster but it hasn't caught on yet in consumer markets.


----------

