Search Results

Search found 2344 results on 94 pages for 'ethernet'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 15/94 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • How to wire 20 computers and 20 phones and 1 server into LAN?

    - by John Smith
    I have currently 3 switches Two Netgear JFS524 with 24 slots, One Belkin with 16 slots. Server DSL Internet Router. Main question is how to connect switches together, two Netgear's are next to each other, yet one is about 100 feet away and holds about 5 computer and 5 phones. If i connect them with only 1 wire will that limit bandwidth? e.g. all 23 computers will be limited to speed of one CAT5e cable? If i connect switches with 2 cables will this give speed boost? What's the ideal scenario should i just move the third switch next to other two? Will the speed of computer connected to white switch be same as computer connected to top switch? Will moving white switch right next top switch and having 16 wires comming 100 feet instead of 1 wire comming 100 feet make it faster? EDIT 1: I actually have NETGEAR ProSafe GS105 Gigabit switch its only has 4 ports in it though, you think i can have use of it in current setup? Like connect all 3 switches and server into it and keep internet router and phone server on one of the slower switches EDIT 2: Everyone mention gigabit switches, but will they do any difference with 10/100 network cards? I then have to use gigabit cards in every computer too? I could in server perhaps, but users will be 10/100

    Read the article

  • Issue with Netgear GS108T Managed Switch and Jumbo Frames

    - by Richie086
    I recently purchased a Netgear GS108T managed switch and I am trying to configure jumbo packets between my NAS (Thecus N4100Pro), PC and managed switch. I should mention the fact that I was able to use jumbo frames between my PC and NAS before I purchased the switch without issue. My Desktop has a wired gigabit NIC (Intel 82579V Gigabit) and has the ability to configure jumbo frames (see pic) that are either 9014 bytes or 4088 bytes. I choose 9014 bytes for the jumbo frame size My NAS supports jumbo frames as well, and is configured to use 9014 as the frame size. When I go into my Netgear managed switch and set the frame size to 9014 on the ports I am using for my PC and NAS. See image As soon as I hit apply in the web interface, I loose my connection to the SMB shares on my NAS and I can no longer connect to the web admin interface for my NAS. The really strange thing is I can ping my NAS via the ping command, but when I try to connect to the web interface on port 80 or port 443 the page never loads. I did a scan from my PC to my NAS using nmap and I can see the following ports open PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 80/tcp open http 111/tcp open rpcbind 139/tcp open netbios-ssn 443/tcp open https 445/tcp open microsoft-ds 631/tcp open ipp 2000/tcp open cisco-sccp 2049/tcp open nfs 3260/tcp open iscsi 49152/tcp open unknown MAC Address: 00:14:FD:15:00:44 (Thecus Technology) Read data files from: C:\Program Files (x86)\Nmap Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 211.97 seconds Raw packets sent: 1 (28B) | Rcvd: 1 (28B) Anyone have any idea what is going on here? Why is nmap able to detect the ports are open and listening for http, https and file sharing but I cant connect when all devices have jumbo packets enabled? Stranger still - I did a packet capture using wireshark while the nmap scan was running and filtered so I only saw converstations between my PC and my NAS. Here are the packet details from my scan Only 4 packets over 5k bytes? What is going on here? Do I not need to configure jumbo frame sizes on the switch? I have an internet connection from my pc to the switch to my router - I just cannot connect to my NAS. I just checked on my iPhone and I am able to open my NAS web admin interface without issue on my iPhone! WTF!!!!!! Let me know if you need more details..

    Read the article

  • How do I diagnose a bottleneck in an Intel Atom based Ubuntu server?

    - by Jon Cage
    I have a small media server at home which has software raid and a gigabit link to the rest of my network. For some reason though, I only get ~10MB/s transfers when copying to/from the server. I use software RAID5 (mdadm) over 4 1TB disks. On top of that I then use LVM to give me a huge pool of disk space which is then split up into multiple partitions which can be resized as and when they need it. I'm guessing this it most likely the cause, but I'd like to know for sure where the root cause is. So, how can I benchmark network throughput (Windows 7 desktop <- Ubuntu server) and hard disk performance to try and identify where my bottleneck might be? [Edit] If anyone's interested, the motherboard is an Intel Desktop Board D945GCLF2. So that's a 300 series Atom processor with the Intel® 945GC Express Chipset [Edit2] I feel like such a fool! I just checked my desktop and I had the slower of the two onboard NICs plugged in so the server is probably not at fault here. Transferring a copy of ubuntu off the server I get ~35-40MB/s according to Windows 7. I'll do those HD tests when I get a chance though (just for completeness).

    Read the article

  • Why is the link between my switch and my router always negotiating half-duplex mode?

    - by Massimo
    I have a Cisco 2950 switch which has one of its ports connected to an Internet router provided by my ISP; I have no access to the router configuration, but I manage the switch. If I leave all switch ports with their default setup (auto-negotiation of speed and duplex mode), this link always connects at 100 MBit/s, but in half-duplex mode. I've tried replacing the cable, and also moving the link to another switch port: the result is always the same. A different device connected to the same port (or to any switch port, really) shows no problem at all. It could be guesed that someone configured the router to only connect in half-duplex mode... BUT, here's the catch: if I manually force the switch port to full-duplex mode (duplex full in the interface configuration), the link goes up, stays up and is completely stable. So: The connection is not forced to half-duplex mode by the router, otherwise it would not connect at all if I force the switch end to full-duplex. There is no actual link problem, otherwise the full-duplex connection would not go up or would at least show some errors. But if I leave the port free to auto-negotiate, it always connects in half-duplex mode. Why?

    Read the article

  • Bonding: works only from one link

    - by Crazy_Bash
    I would like to install bonding with 4 links. but only one of them is active. eth4 is always active. the others simply don't work. those are my configs: DEVICE="eth2" BOOTPROTO="none" MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=yes USERCTL=no NM_CONTROLLED="no" ONBOOT="yes" DEVICE="eth3" BOOTPROTO="none" MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=yes USERCTL=no NM_CONTROLLED="no" ONBOOT="yes" DEVICE="eth4" BOOTPROTO="none" MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=yes USERCTL=no NM_CONTROLLED="no" ONBOOT="yes" DEVICE="eth5" BOOTPROTO="none" MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=yes USERCTL=no NM_CONTROLLED="no" ONBOOT="yes" DEVICE=bond0 IPADDR=<ip> BROADCAST=<ip> NETWORK=<ip> GATEWAY=<ip> NETMASK=<ip> USERCTL=no BOOTPROTO=none ONBOOT=yes NM_CONTROLLED=no /etc/modprobe.d/bonding.conf alias bond0 bonding options bond0 mode=4 miimon=100 updelay=200 #downdelay=200 xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4 lacp_rate=1 Linux: Linux 3.0.0+ #1 SMP Fri Oct 26 07:55:47 EEST 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux what i've tried: downdelay=200 xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4 lacp_rate=1

    Read the article

  • Netgear FVX538v2 slow whene connected to Canoga Perkins N525 ETSU

    - by Doomloard
    First of all thank you in advance for helping me. my issue is the old network admin found a problem whene he connected the firewall and the ETSU together the through put went down to less than 1 mega bit a second. his fix was to add a dlink router between the firewall and the etsu which speed it up to 5 mega bits a second. now my boss wants a more clean and proper solution if possible. i have check all the settings in the netgear it dose not seem to be a setting issue. if anyone can help that would be great.

    Read the article

  • Networking switch setup

    - by Crash893
    I have two 48 port gigabit netgear switches with 2 SFP ports each (i also have two Mini-GBIC copper transceiver modules) Is it best to set the ports up by using the built in ports (ie plug port 1 of switchB into port 48 of switchA and port1 of switchA into the router) or is there an advantage to using the mini-gbic? (lets call the sfp ports 49 and 50) router - port 49 on switchA, port 50 switchA - port 49 SwitchB

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to change the voltage on a single port on an HP ProCurve 2910al POE switch and how?

    - by hjoelr
    I have a couple of HP ProCurve 2910al POE+ switches at my company that we are primarily using to power our VOIP phones that run on 48V DC. However, I have one wireless access point that I need to run off of POE, but it has to be 24V DC. I'm afraid to plug it into the POE ProCurve because I'm not sure if it will zap the device. I'm wondering if there is a way to make sure to change the voltage on a specific port to 24V instead of the (seemingly) default value of 48V. Thanks! Joel

    Read the article

  • How to get gigabit network speeds on Windows XP?

    - by JB
    We've just installed gigabit switches at work, and things on the Linux side are going well. Our linux boxes, which use a Intel Corporation 82566DM-2 Gigabit nic (according to lspci), consistently get over 900 mbits/sec: iperf -c ipserver ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to ipserver, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.40.9 port 39823 connected with 192.168.1.115 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 929 Mbits/sec We have a bunch of Windows XP 64-bit machines that use Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx cards. I spent around a day trying to get equivalent speeds on them, but couldn't get above 200 Mbits/sec. I noticed the Windows iperf tests said that the TCP window size was 8 Kb by default (as opposed to 16 Kb on Linux, so I modified my test to reflect that. Still no love. I went to Broadcom's site, downloaded the latest drivers for the card and installed. Still no love. However, finally, I tried a 64 Kb window size with the new drivers, and finally an improvement! $ iperf -c ipserver -w64k ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to ipserver, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.40.214 port 1848 connected with 192.168.1.115 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 933 MBytes 782 Mbits/sec Much better, but still not really taking advantage of the full capabilities of the network. If the Linux box can reach 950 Mbits/sec consistently, this box should be able to as well. Also, if you're wondering about the medium, this is over the same cable...I'm switching back and forth. Any suggestion or ideas would be really welcome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Abysmal transfer speeds on gigabit network

    - by Vegard Larsen
    I am having trouble getting my Gigabit network to work properly between my desktop computer and my Windows Home Server. When copying files to my server (connected through my switch), I am seeing file transfer speeds of below 10MB/s, sometimes even below 1MB/s. The machine configurations are: Desktop Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 2x WD Green 1TB drives in striped RAID 4GB RAM AB9 QuadGT motherboard Realtek RTL8810SC network adapter Windows Home Server AMD Athlon 64 X2 4GB RAM 6x WD Green 1,5TB drives in storage pool Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H motherboard Realtek 8111C network adapter Switch dLink Green DGS-1008D 8-port Both machines report being connected at 1Gbps. The switch lights up with green lights for those two ports, indicating 1Gbps. When connecting the machines through the switch, I am seeing insanely low speeds from WHS to the desktop measured with iperf: 10Kbits/sec (WHS is running iperf -c, desktop is iperf -s). Using iperf the other way (WHS is iperf -s, desktop iperf -c) speeds are also bad (~20Mbits/sec). Connecting the machines directly with a patch cable, I see much higher speeds when connecting from desktop to WHS (~300 Mbits/sec), but still around 10Kbits/sec when connecting from WHS to the desktop. File transfer speeds are also much quicker (both directions). Log from desktop for iperf connection from WHS (through switch): C:\temp>iperf -s ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [248] local 192.168.1.32 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.20 port 3227 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [248] 0.0-18.5 sec 24.0 KBytes 10.6 Kbits/sec Log from desktop for iperf connection to WHS (through switch): C:\temp>iperf -c 192.168.1.20 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.20, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [148] local 192.168.1.32 port 57012 connected with 192.168.1.20 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [148] 0.0-10.3 sec 28.5 MBytes 23.3 Mbits/sec What is going on here? Unfortunately I don't have any other gigabit-capable devices to try with.

    Read the article

  • Very low throughput on 10GbE network

    - by aix
    I have two Linux machines, each equipped with a Solarflare SFN5122F 10GbE NIC. The two NICs are connected together with an SFP+ Direct Attach cable. I am using netperf to measure TCP throughput between the two machines. On one box, I run: netserver and on the other: netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H 192.168.x.x -- -m 32768 I get: MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.x.x (192.168.x.x) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 32768 10.02 1321.34 The measured throughput is 1.3Gb/s. This is 7.5x below the theoretical maximum, and only 30% faster than 1GbE. What steps can I take to troubleshoot this?

    Read the article

  • Anyone love/hate the PowerConnect line of switches from Dell?

    - by Rob Bergin
    I am looking at replacing some unmanaged 16 port store bought GB switches and wanted to go with Cisco but it may be cost prohibitive. Instead I am looking at ProCurve or Dell's PowerConnect line up. I am looking for SNMP, Management, VLANs, and SFLOW would icing on the switch cupcake. I would get the 6224 or the 6248 and then maybe add the RPS-600 to it for redundant power. I think the RPS-600 supports multiple switches. Rackspace is also a little challenge so I am trying to do it with as little Rack Units as possible. Ideally I would go with two 6224's or a single 6248 and then do two VLANs. Thanks for any feedback. Rob

    Read the article

  • LAN connection problem

    - by Pradi
    how to connect to different system within the lan? im getting messages back when pinged with host ip address and also for default gateway. But messages pinged to another ip address with in my lan are not comming back? please help me out.

    Read the article

  • LAN connection problem

    - by Pradi
    how to connect to different system within the lan? im getting messages back when pinged with host ip address and also for default gateway. But messages pinged to another ip address with in my lan are not comming back? please help me out.

    Read the article

  • Does Gigabit degrade all ports to 100 megabit if there is a 100 megabit device attached?

    - by hjoelr
    Our company is buying some HP Procurve managed gigabit switches to replace some of our core switches. However, we aren't able to upgrade all of our switches from 100Mb to Gigabit switches. I think I know the answer but I'm not exactly sure. If we plug those 100Mb switches (or even a 100Mb device) into those Gigabit switches, will the performance of the entire switch drop to 100Mb or will just that one port work at 100Mb?

    Read the article

  • Internet very slow when upgrading to Ubuntu 9.10

    - by roojoo
    I was running Ubuntu 8.x on my desktop and everything worked fine. Im using wired internet and it worked perfectly, pages loaded pretty fast. However, when I decided to upgrade to 9.10 the upgrade failed at some point, however I was left with what appeared to be Ubuntu 9.10. Since then the internet has been weird. When I go to a website it takes at least 10 seconds for the page to display, however if Im on a site and navigate to other pages on the website it loads quickly. This never happened prior to the upgrade. I thought this may be due to the upgrade not installing correctly so I did a fresh install of Xubuntu 9.10 but the problems are still the same. Im writing this on a Vista machine over the wireless network and internet is fine. Does anyone have any ideas of the issue? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Gigabit capacity

    - by abronte
    Do gigabit ports have a total throughput of 1 gigabit so that you could be sending 800 mbit and receiving 200 mbit at the same time. Or is it 1000 in and 1000 out?

    Read the article

  • CPU load, USB connection vs. NIC

    - by T.J. Crowder
    In general, and understanding the answer may vary by manufacturer and model (and driver, and...), in consumer-grade workstations with integrated NICs, does the NIC rely on the CPU for a lot of help (as is typically the case with a USB controller, for instance), or is it fairly intelligent and capable on its own (like, say, the typical Firewire controller)? Or is the question too general to answer? (If it matters, you can assume Linux.) Background: I'm looking at connecting a device (digital television capture) that will be delivering ~20-50 Mbit/sec of data to a somewhat under-powered workstation. I can get a USB 2 High-speed device, or a network-attached device, and am interested in avoiding impacting the CPU where possible. Obviously, if it's a 100Mbit NIC, that's roughly half its theoretical inbound bandwidth, whereas it's only roughly a tenth of the 480 Mbit/second the USB 2 "High Speed" interface. But if the latter requires a lot of CPU support and the former doesn't...

    Read the article

  • Trouble Extending Network with Apple Airport Extreme (PC won't connect with Ethernet)

    - by 0x783czar
    So I have an Apple Airport Extreme base station that I use to create a wifi network at my house. But on a separate story from this station i have a PC (running Windows 7) that does not have a wireless card. Luckily, I have another Airport Extreme Base Station, so I figured I'd have my second station "extend" the existing network. I asked Apple if this was possible, which it was, and walked through the setup wizard to extend the network. Then I ran an ethernet cable from the Station to my PC. However the PC refuses to connect to the Internet. It says it can access the network, "Unidentified Network (Limited Connectivity)", but that's it. It tells me that my computer does not have an IP address. I tried running the cable to another computer (my Apple MacBook Pro) and got a similar error. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • gigabit network with adsl modem

    - by user51006
    Hi, i would like to build a gigabit network to connect the different computers at my home. I already have an 100Mb adsl router/modem but i have an hard time to find a 1000Mb one, so i came up with the idea of using a normal 1000Mb router or switch to put between the adsl modem and the computers. So i only use the adsl modem to connect to the internet and the gigabit router as dhcp to connect the different computers. But to get to the question. Will the 100Mb adsl router slow down my network? Will data travel like pc gigabit router computer or pc gigabit router adsl router gigabit router pc. My gut says it will go like in the first option but i have seen network hardware do some weird stuff. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Cascading switches: uplink to uplink?

    - by wuckachucka
    I'm a bit confused as to why I haven't seen any references online to using Switch A's uplink port (1Gbps, 24-port 10/100) to connect to Switch B's uplink port: everything I've seen -- including documentation, forums, articles, etc. -- has Switch A's uplink port going to one of Switch B's 10/100 access ports. As I understand it, the Uplink port (besides greater speed normally) is no different than another port except that it's "internally crossed-over" so that you can use a straight cable with it. I've also seen documentation on using the uplink port to connect a switch to a gateway router, or even a server, as it provides greater bandwidth than the access ports, but yet not sure why nobody seems to be cross-uplinking, even when there's 2 uplink ports available on some higher-end switches. Switch in question is Linksys SRW224P (x2). Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • How to take advantage of two Internet connections (WiFi / Wired) ?

    - by Madhur Ahuja
    I have two separate internet connections, one through WiFi and other Wired. However, generally I have observed that Windows try to use only one ( mostly faster one/ Or Wired by preference - I am not sure). Is there a way I can take advantage of having both ? For example I can have my web browser use the wired one and my torrent software use the Wifi One. PS: This question may be regarded as duplicate but reason I am posting it again is I have not found any concrete answer for it. Two internet Connections, one LAN - how to share?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >