LAN throughput Speed tests (TCP Optimizer)

[semtex007]

I have a small query, whilst browsing through a Windows XP magazine I found an article on using the TCP Optimizer for LAN use. However as I was in a waiting room I felt duty bound to leave the magazine behind. I have a 10/100hub with several workstations connected to 2 servers and a Broadband ADSL router for internet connections. I am less than happy with the speed I can transfer large files across the network, a problem that has grown over time. Can I test the effective throughput of files with the Optimizer, if so how? I have considered replacing the hub with a 10/100/1000 switch, would this help? The servers and some of the key machines do have Gigabit NICs. I move large images, DIVx & DVR-MS files around. Thanks in advance.

[mccoffee]

Replace hub with a switch. A hub broadcast all packets out where a switch will only communicate to the computer it's going to instead of the whole network. Switches will keep collisions down and in your case lower broadcast by not ueing a hub.

[semtex007]

Do you have any suggested brands? It seems like a minefield of choices that end up being reflected in the end-user pricing.

[mccoffee]

That's about if you have the means then spend it if you are just using more for connections no valn setups nothing high then lower the cost one should the trick.

[YeOldeStonecat]

How many machines total? There are a lot of factors here to consider.

First...Windows is already quite optimal for LAN speeds. Unless something has been messed up in the tcp stack...in my opinion, there's not really much tweaking you can do for LAN transfers.

Second...make sure all your machines are what I'll call "leaned out" as far as network protocols go. Meaning...you're using ideally just one protocol..TCP/IP. You don't have IPX also running, you don't have NetBEUI also running, you don't have CrAppletalk also running.

Do you have a domain? Or just a peer to peer network? If you have a domain setup..we need to review some DNS setup...so that browsing is optimal, and you don't have a lot of broadcasts/request for name resolution.

Yes a switch is usually better than a hub. But honestly...you don't really see a big difference unless you have a bigger network (like...over a dozen PCs). Also we don't know what you're current hub is..I've seen some good quality hubs outperform a cheap switch in some cases. But in general, especially these days...switches have come down to much in price..it's one quick method to increase network performance.

Linksys/Cisco makes some good midrange switches...their SR and SRW series...I've used a lot of those, they work very well, great "bang for the buck".

Hard Drives...on both ends...but especially on your server...SCSI rules all. But we realize that's not always an option. You can still get SATA and old PATA to run decent. Fastest RPM possible, 7,200rpm minimim. A drive with at least 8 megs of cache also.

Beef up the RAM

Keep drives defragged

A low system performance impact antivirus...some antivirus programs are very bloated...and their real time scanning of files as you transfer them can slow you down.

Gigabit? Yes...can help. It's come down quite a bit in cost. There are several factors which impact this also. Cheaper 32 bit PCI giga NICs don't give you the best..PCI bus is already pretty saturated. Having giga gear which supports jumbo frames helps performance also.