84 replies to this topic

[The_Decryptor]

NoUserName, on 31 March 2012 - 02:42, said:

...
Please I am still do not understand this Jumbo Frames thing correctly, please may you explain it more?
...

Normally ethernet frames are 1500 bytes long, (That includes headers and such), jumbo frames allow you to increase the side of the frames, decreasing the amount of headers sent.

Both my gigabit switches support 9KB jumbo frames (so I can send around 9KB of data per header instead of around 1KB), my PC also supports it (but disabled by default) and my Mac makes no mention to whether it's supported or not.

Edit: After messing around with settings and testing it, all the devices on my network support jumbo frames, so my systems can now pass around 9KB of data in a single Ethernet frame. It seems faster, but I need to do actual testing.

[NoUserName]

Ok, I will try to get a 16 port one.
Please which model support jumpo frames ?

[NoUserName]

Please I would like to ask if using ftp will be any good to do the transfer after done the hardware upgrade to gigabit:
ftp server in the boxes I am copying from.
ftp client to the boxes I am copying to.
and does file zilla considered a good option or there is a better software?

[+sc302]

don't use ftp you will be just fine with windows transfer esp with jumbo frames...once the copy starts ftp would be near useless anyway. you won't gain much at all from ftp.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833129035

[SirEvan]

I don't want to come off like an ASS, but perhaps the OP needs to actually hire a network engineer. It sounds like you don't have a clue about this stuff, don't understand networking, OS's Protocols, etc. I'm all for people learning, but you don't understand the basics, if you really need this for a business, you should hire someone who knows this stuff to set things up for you to fulfill your business need.

[NoUserName]

sc302, on 31 March 2012 - 04:39, said:

don't use ftp you will be just fine with windows transfer esp with jumbo frames...once the copy starts ftp would be near useless anyway. you won't gain much at all from ftp.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833129035

Ok, thanks

Another point: I've found a Jumpo frame option in the network adapter setting from device manager for the motherboard gigabyte built-in network in the motherboard.

But for the one in the Dell OptiPlex GB620, I did not found and mention for the Jumpo Frame. so in such a case the network pci card we had may include this option or not?

SirEvan, on 31 March 2012 - 05:04, said:

I don't want to come off like an ASS, but perhaps the OP needs to actually hire a network engineer. It sounds like you don't have a clue about this stuff, don't understand networking, OS's Protocols, etc. I'm all for people learning, but you don't understand the basics, if you really need this for a business, you should hire someone who knows this stuff to set things up for you to fulfill your business need.

You are right about us, but wee found it a bit expensive to hire an engineer so we are do it ourselves the hardway.
Also we almost there and about to finish the network setup (thanks for all of you guys).

[NoUserName]

- later on edit -
this is the network adapter:
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=284

[NoUserName]

I've just installed the D-Link_DGE-528T_Gigabit card and now I can see the jumbo frames option exist.
so, now shall i use the d-link one instead of the built-in one in the dell optiplex gx 620?

[+articuno1au]

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

[TEX4S]

articuno1au, on 31 March 2012 - 08:45, said:

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

EXACTLY - talk about mulling over every insignificant detail there is ! --

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !
Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

If you get near 100MB/sec - you are moving files unbelievably fast over ethernet - even if it peaks @ 70MB - be happy & dont sweat pointless details that will only show a benefit if you did it 24/7 over the next 10 years.


Curious, what kind of business is this ?

[NoUserName]

Here is the details of the d-link one:

[NoUserName]

I am sorry I did not realized your replies because been making the print screen

articuno1au, on 31 March 2012 - 08:45, said:

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

Ok, Thanks a lot for you and for all other good people input in this thread, really saved us a lot of money indeed for a consultant.

TEX4S, on 31 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

EXACTLY - talk about mulling over every insignificant detail there is ! --

it is just I am really worry for getting started then have a problem ... but I will listen to your advise my friend.

TEX4S, on 31 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !
Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

I am sorry, but please, do you say that as an example to clear your idea to do not worry about details?
Or you mean for real that using two switches and bridge both of them will almost make no differences?
Thanks for this tip and sorry if I am asking silly or stupid question ... please be patient

TEX4S, on 31 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

If you get near 100MB/sec - you are moving files unbelievably fast over ethernet - even if it peaks @ 70MB - be happy & dont sweat pointless details that will only show a benefit if you did it 24/7 over the next 10 years.

That would be really amazing thing to be achieved and I never ask for something more indeed.

TEX4S, on 31 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

Curious, what kind of business is this ?

It is as I mentioned on the beginning of the thread here

Quote

We are a small media producing company that are working under short term contracts out sourced for some local TV channels to record its shows on a daily base and do video encoding to various format like .avi, .rm, .flv, .mp3 … and upload it to famous websites plus a .mpeg copy to be given to the channel itself.

[+sc302]

TEX4S, on 31 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !
Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

This is not accurate. This would depend on how many computers are being copied from and to. You can bottleneck on the uplinks between switches. It shouldn't take a math genius to figure out that you can't pull 2 or more through something that is only capable of 1. And the 1 will get divided by the computers trying to pull data through it, 2 computers pulling will only get 500mb, 3 pulling 333mb and so on. But if all of the computers are on the same switch they can maintain 1Gb/s between all of them, they aren't sharing a 1Gb connection.

Make sense now? He needs it for massive file transfers not connecting pcs to a network that will browse the internet and pull small docs from a server. He needs all available bandwidth, but if he is only copying to 1 computer it is a moot point.

[cybertimber2008]

OP, can you walk us through how you copy? Do you do one machine at a time or multiple?
And how do you copy? Are you "moving" the file to another computer, or do you copy it from the recording computer to the editing computer, leaving the original on the recorder.

[NoUserName]

cybertimber2008, on 31 March 2012 - 15:45, said:

OP, can you walk us through how you copy?

So far I was using the copy software tera copy and winmend software ...

cybertimber2008, on 31 March 2012 - 15:45, said:

Do you do one machine at a time or multiple?

Yes it is a one file from a one machine in a time, as I open the copy software and drag and drop the file from various network computers and place them all in queue then it is copying one by one ... so no parallel transfer under any circumstances as I read that multi transfer increase the time 0f transferring.

cybertimber2008, on 31 March 2012 - 15:45, said:

And how do you copy? Are you "moving" the file to another computer, or do you copy it from the recording computer to the editing computer, leaving the original on the recorder.

Yes exactly this is what I am doing ... then after finishing the transfer I do delete the file from the recording machine (using remote desktop) then do a restart or a shut down, and setup ccleaner to run when computer start to clean everything to save space on the hard drive as each computer from the recording machine using a 80 gb hard drive and make it on big partition as making two r three partitions will lose a lot of space.
But please let me ask if moving the files is any better instead of copying, but I use the copy way in case anything wrong happened during the move process.