Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Network speed and utilization low

Last response: in Components
Share
October 16, 2010 11:55:57 PM

i am currently connecting 2 computers to each other with an ethernet cable. both nic cards can run 100mbps and at the moment i am transferring a 6.73gb file from computer A to computer B but i am not reaching utilization higher than 1% on a 100mbps connection. I would also like to know how to see my exact transfer rate when using windows xp.
October 17, 2010 12:32:01 AM

A 100mbps lan connection will have a max of 12.5 Meg/sec transfer rate
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 12:36:32 AM

Emerald said:
A 100mbps lan connection will have a max of 12.5 Meg/sec transfer rate


is there anyway i can see my transfer rate when using xp besides using the task manager utilization graph?
also i checked the duration my transfer has been going (3hours) and how many bits it has sent (1,721,495,249) and got a rough estimate of a transfer speed of 157kbps and on a direct ethernet connection ( no routers or switches just comp to comp) is pretty slow as far as i have seen.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 17, 2010 10:34:53 AM

When you bridge two computers together it's like a one lane road. Try a switch hub to connect them instead.
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 11:17:16 AM

Some times ethernet interfaces will just not connect properly in a peer-to-peer/ad-hoc setup even with manually assigned IP addresses and subnets mask set correctly due to auto media sense capabilities of cards being to smart for their own good, best to try what *dEAne said.
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 2:49:45 PM

ty for the info guys but ive called it quits on the computer to computer network and just bought myself a 160gb external harddrive which was able to copy the file in less than 10 minutes compared to the 3 hour wait i had which resulted in a copy error via the ethernet connection.
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 3:45:28 PM

radecule said:
ty for the info guys but ive called it quits on the computer to computer network and just bought myself a 160gb external harddrive which was able to copy the file in less than 10 minutes compared to the 3 hour wait i had which resulted in a copy error via the ethernet connection.

Wise decision. There is another solution though. But since you've decided to manually transfer data via the External HDD, I guess it's too late to say it. :D 
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 5:48:15 PM

true but for future reference it would be nice to know what alternative i could have used?
m
0
l
October 17, 2010 6:13:38 PM

It's something like this:

http://www.usbgear.com/link/index.html

Since it's USB based, should be more reliable and hassle free than that P2P Ethernet issue you've experienced. I'm not sure about the speed though, but considering External HDDs are also using USB 2.0 platform, I'd estimate the transfer speed not to greatly differ between the two methods. Moreover, it's plug and play, not plug then re-plug (as in from one PC to another?) :lol: 

Hope this can give you a better insight for the future. :D 

EDIT:typos and false grammars...
m
0
l
October 26, 2010 12:25:10 PM

dEAne said:
When you bridge two computers together it's like a one lane road. Try a switch hub to connect them instead.


I would say that is not correct. Why should it be like a one lane road?

A switch (not a hub!) between will not by definition increase any speed. The connections must be able to negotiate speed and duplex, but that is the same if the endpoint is a switch or directly to another NIC.

The same applies to IP addresses and subnetmasks and other logical configuration, it must still be correct and it will not matter if using a peer-to-peer connection or if using a switch.



m
0
l
October 26, 2010 12:44:44 PM

My first thought was a dodgy cable. Lots of lost packets.
m
0
l
October 26, 2010 12:48:48 PM

mi1ez said:
My first thought was a dodgy cable. Lots of lost packets.


It could be wise to make sure the cable is of good quality.

For checking corrupt frames running in the command prompt:

netstat -e
m
0
l
!