An interesting network issue today

***Zardon*** · Jun 30, 2004, 01:05 PM

Well im sure some of you guys will know this before I get to the solution but I thought id document it for those who dont on the off chance if anyone ever needs it, it might come in handy. i also certainly wouldnt class myself as a network expert although I tend to work out most things in the end.

Ok time to build the scenario up.

ive a 4 pc network - all connected to a router firewall which is in turn connected to the cable modem. all works fine and dandy.

Today I thought id put in 2 additional lan cards I have in PCI format to "free" up two of the pcs gigabit lan connections so I could transfer files faster between these 2 specific pcs. So altering the rigs, windows detected the new PCI cards no problem and set the network up. Went into intels proset lan manager and saw

"intel pro/100+ management adapter and intel pro/1000 CT network connection".

checked the 1000 settings, tested all fine. so I copied a file between these two "gigabit" connected computers. still the same speed.....mmmmm. killed the 100+ connection. wham, there you go massive speed increases. went onto the internet on the computer I killed the 100+ adapter... doh, I just killed the router internet connection. rebooted to let windows redetect the PCI adapter. ok back to stage 1.

internet search time, couldnt find this problem. How do I get the 1000 connection to "take over" the file transfers between these two computers, after all ive two perfectly good intel mobos with gigabit lan onboard (1 abit MAX3 and 1 intel PCIe board).

After much hair pulling and failed efforts I ran CMD. "ipconfig" (thanks kombatant for reminding me about that one).

saw the 2 connections were in different IP ranges. the PCI router connection all in the 192.168.0.x range and the gigabit connection in a 242.xxx.xxx.xxx range.

wonder if I altered these gigabit connections to 192.168.0.5 and 192.168.0.6 would this work?

hey presto. now when I copy files between these computers the faster connection "takes over".

Might be simple to some of you networking gurus, but I learned something new today and I can now copy files at 1 gig in around 30 seconds...... nice !

Chaos · Jun 30, 2004, 01:49 PM

That was a nice heads up

So how much faster is file transfer between the two PC in question?

Chaos · Jun 30, 2004, 01:50 PM

That just gave me flashbacks to the evil days of studying tcp/ip and subnetting and supernetting ip's it was such a brain drain for the n00b that I was when I dove ni head first

***Zardon*** · Jun 30, 2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos
That was a nice heads up So how much faster is file transfer between the two PC in question?

1 gig image was around 5-6 minutes before I think, down to well under a minute now. around 30-40 seconds I think

Chaos · Jun 30, 2004, 01:55 PM

**dj_stick** · Jul 1, 2004, 05:23 AM

nice - i'll remember this

Matth · Jul 1, 2004, 12:10 PM

So now the two interfaces addresses suggest that they are on the same network, when they are not?

Have a close look at your routing table - if it ONLY considers the Gigabit link to be between the two, then you'll probably get away with it - for anything NOT on your network, they will be compelled to go to the default router on the other interface, but ther is a possibility that loacl connection to other systems may try to mis-route through the Gigabit link.

***Zardon*** · Jul 1, 2004, 12:50 PM

well unfortunately ive just realised the other 2 pcs, even though they are on the MSHOME network cant see the two machines that are now talking perfectly to each other on gigabit lan (and seeing the web).....

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 01:10 PM

just for clarification,

are all four of the pcs connected to the same router via 100mb of which the 2 pcs with the gigabit connection are connected to each other via the gigabit cards and a x-over cable?

ie the 2 gigabit machines form a discreet network/subnet

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 01:20 PM

another idea - the two gigabit connections - try setting one up with an ip in the routers range and the gateway as the next ip in that range. On the other machine use the same ip addresses for the ip and gateway but swap them round. you may have to use a different subnet for that though. I'm asuming you have 255.255.255.0 so use something like 255.255.240.0

If the gateways on these machines are set to being the ip on the other then those pcs will use the ip of the other before anything else and this is why you will probably need to use a different subnet.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the gateway of any network is the ip that all trafic flows through first - hence gateway.

Depending on the router though this might not work.

***Zardon*** · Jul 1, 2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logla
just for clarification,

are all four of the pcs connected to the same router via 100mb of which the 2 pcs with the gigabit connection are connected to each other via the gigabit cards and a x-over cable?

ie the 2 gigabit machines form a discreet network/subnet

router to modem.

4 pcs to router all independent forming the main network.

2 of these pcs have an additional gigabit connection and are connected together via another lan cable. the slower connection (via router) is overriding the faster one when copying files between the two gig pcs.

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 01:38 PM

So its setup like this?

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 01:40 PM

I have another idea - make sure the metric number in the advanced IP properties of both gigabit connections is set to something like 3 and all the other connections on all pc's and the router if possible is set to about 15

***Zardon*** · Jul 1, 2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logla
So its setup like this?

yes thats exactly right...... I tried your idea above about gateways etc, interesting idea and i see where you are coming from but unfortunately it didnt work.

the lan 100m via router are all 192.168.0x ranges with subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. gateway 192.168.0.1

the gigabyte lan is 169.254.24.144 wth subnet mask 255.255.0.0 no gateway marked for ipconfig in that...

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
the gigabyte lan is 169.254.24.144 wth subnet mask 255.255.0.0 no gateway marked for ipconfig in that...

Is that an automatically assigned address? Its just that a 169.254 is usually an IP address that is assigned to a card when the auto IP addressing doesn't work properly - that would be why you have no gateway and you must have a gateway otherwise the card doesn't know where to address traffic to first.

EDIT: Forgot to add that if they are set to auto assign then they wont pick up an address because there is no DNS server running.

***Zardon*** · Jul 1, 2004, 04:23 PM

ok you prodded me in the right direction,

I set the 4 LAN 100mbit up as usual, then set the 2 gigabit addresses to

IP ADDRESS 169.254.5.1 and 169.254.5.2

subnet mask the same as the router lan 255.255.255.0 and the default gateway the same as the router lan 192.168.0.1, very interesting and ive learned alot, if I made the gigabit connections in the same zone of 192.168.0.x it would override the lan totally and the other 2 pcs wouldnt hook up on the lan for sharing.

so now, all four can still connect independently to the internet via the router and when I select transfers between the two gigabit equipped pcs the faster hookup works. and its MUCH faster. roll on gigabit routers.

swimtech · Jul 1, 2004, 04:31 PM

I'm not a networking guru by any means and learn what I need as I need it...

Couldn't you stick an inexpensive (less than 100.00 US) gigabit switch between the four computers and the router (plug the four computers into the switch - one line from the switch to the router) and remove the interconnect between the two computers alone. That should allow the four computers to talk to one another at their own best speed, make IP configuration easier (they can all be on the same subnet), and give all four access to the outside through the router?

Just thinking...

Edit: Looks like you did that while I was posting, but without the switch...

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 04:43 PM

glad its sorted mate.

I cant understand why giga routers are so expensive/hard to come by/non existant.

dipstick · Jul 1, 2004, 04:46 PM

That is a sweet idea; Might have to try it out now that LAN cards are so cheap. Thread saved

***Zardon*** · Jul 1, 2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dipstick
That is a sweet idea; Might have to try it out now that LAN cards are so cheap. Thread saved

its a massive difference if you move large files around. We all know LAN 100 is good, around 10 meg a second, well more like 9-9.5 real world, which is fast, but gigalan is really hard drive speeds. I cant wait until giga routers hit the scene, ill be all over one like a rash hehe.

I really just added 2 £5 100mb lan cards to the pcs with gigabit onboard and connected them to each other (with the now free gig lan connecton) to play with it, hard to go back now !

Logla · Jul 1, 2004, 05:26 PM

I'll be soreley tempted to run my current mobo in a file server come mobo upgrade time (which is a little way off) giga lan is marvelous for shifting ISO image files around - we use a similar setup at work for burning images.

~~Sourcer_2002~~ · Jul 1, 2004, 05:52 PM

The problem is .... well this happened the last time at a small lan / get together with a cisco gigabit router...you can run full giga to all pcs that have gigabit nics but as soon as a pc with 10/100 connected to the PC with the gigabit nic auto dropped to 10/100 i dont know if that was just an issue with the onboard nic...the router...or settings....

swimtech · Jul 2, 2004, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logla
I'll be soreley tempted to run my current mobo in a file server come mobo upgrade time (which is a little way off) giga lan is marvelous for shifting ISO image files around - we use a similar setup at work for burning images.

Just recently put together a gigalan setup with three Macs and an Xserve Raid Array (3.2 Tb storage - configured Raid 5 for 2.0 Tb actual storage) running OS X that occasionally would have to connect to the main network - similar to what Zardon is doing. The files are huge (20G plus...) - used for video production - and the mini lan was my idea to them at the time they needed the Xserve Raid installed and configured - the boss said "OK". They had been saving to Firewire drives and walking the drive around between workstations which were not networked. I had to make the computers IP compatible with the main network and each other through reboots - taught myself a lot! Eventually they'll be using this setup to stream video and for remote video acquisition for editing - among other things.

Anyway, the data transfer between workstations and the Xserve Raid beats the firewire drives - blazing! - they love it!