Network transfer suddenly backs down to 0 bytes then back up....

[riahc3]

Hello,

Got a strange one here....

Im transferring for example files to/from one PC (Windows 7) to another (Windows 8) and using the Windows 8 file dialog I see it reaches OK speeds of 80KB /s and such for about 7 seconds (this is constant; its always 7 seconds), then it stays at 0 bytes for 3 seconds, then another 7 seconds at top speed, etc....

Its odd so I guess BudMan will have to fill this one.

Not downloading anything or nothing that is eating up my LAN/WAN bandwidth....

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Separate PCs? Could be a firewall or a AV issue (though, I wouldn't imagine it would be either of those).

 

It also could just be that you are transferring large files and that they are getting cached or buffered into memory and then subsequently are transferred. The transfer rates would drop while buffering is happening.

 

EDIT: try xcopy /j from command line for an unbuffered copy.

[The Evil Overlord]

^ oh, hey, grats on the MVC :shifty:

[+BudMan MVC]

"I see it reaches OK speeds of 80KB /s"

Ok speeds? Using what string and paper cup???? 80KB.. That is like 640Kbits -- that is not even wireless B speeds?? Did you mean to say 80MB? Now that would be decent gig wired speeds..

What is your network, and what are you moving.. I would suggest you move 1 large file using robocopy so we can get some actual numbers to work with.. But 80KB is not OK anything that is for sure..

[riahc3]

Hello,

Separate PCs? Could be a firewall or a AV issue (though, I wouldn't imagine it would be either of those).

 

It also could just be that you are transferring large files and that they are getting cached or buffered into memory and then subsequently are transferred. The transfer rates would drop while buffering is happening.

 

EDIT: try xcopy /j from command line for an unbuffered copy.

Yes they are separte PCs and I havent installed/enabled any new firewall or AVs....

This never happened before....so Im not sure it is related. Ive tested on big and small files.

 

"I see it reaches OK speeds of 80KB /s"

Ok speeds? Using what string and paper cup???? 80KB.. That is like 640Kbits -- that is not even wireless B speeds?? Did you mean to say 80MB? Now that would be decent gig wired speeds..

What is your network, and what are you moving.. I would suggest you move 1 large file using robocopy so we can get some actual numbers to work with.. But 80KB is not OK anything that is for sure..

Using a larger file, I get better speeds:

Here Im moving a 1.37 GB file.

Ill try a robocopy now :)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

What type of speeds do you get copying the file from one drive to another on the same system? I've seen issues before where Windows was copying a file at <1MBps from a USB drive to my hard drive.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Here is the robocopy result:

[riahc3]

Hello,

What type of speeds do you get copying the file from one drive to another on the same system? I've seen issues before where Windows was copying a file at <1MBps from a USB drive to my hard drive.

Normal speed.

It was obvious from the start that this is a network issue.

[riahc3]

Hello,

OK, now I can confirm this is a wireless issue. Wired looks good.

[+BudMan MVC]

So your saying move is crap? But copy is good.. Is that wireless to wireless or wired to wireless. I assume your desktop is wireless. Which a bit off topic but never understood.. Your desktop is kind always in the same place is it not - or do you move yours around the house? I don't understand why anyone would connect a stationary device to the network wirelessly?

On you wireless setting do you have rts/cts enabled?

What exactly is the difference in methods between screen 1 and 2?

[+BudMan MVC]

2.5MBps -- yeah that is kind of crappy for N.. About average for G.. Is it wireless to wireless, then your about right. Remember wireless to wireless /2

So question what are you wireless settings, do you have N set only, 20 or 40? Are you g-n? That is going to be a HIT, have gone over it and over it hear.. Some people seem to not agree.. But the facts have been posted - and just common sense tells you if I have to run my network so that G can talk to it, then clearly I am not using all the bells and whistles that N allows for to speed up the network, etc..

I will do a test to my wifes laptop from my nas

edit: So here is what I see doing wireless on 1 large file from wired server to wireless laptop, no special cards.. Cheap ass tplink as AP.

[riahc3]

Hello,

So your saying move is crap? But copy is good.. Is that wireless to wireless or wired to wireless. I assume your desktop is wireless. Which a bit off topic but never understood.. Your desktop is kind always in the same place is it not - or do you move yours around the house? I don't understand why anyone would connect a stationary device to the network wirelessly?

On you wireless setting do you have rts/cts enabled?

What exactly is the difference in methods between screen 1 and 2?

Too much eggnog BudMan :p

All tests have been done copy only. This is wired (PC running Windows 7) to wireless (laptop running Windows 8.1). My desktop is wired.

My wireless client (laptop) has "Mixed Mode Protection" set to "CTS-to-self Enabled" with the other option being "RTS/CTS Enabled".

My wireless router has RTS Threshold set to disabled.

[Ambroos]

You can do a lot of stuff with wireless (N-only, Greenfield, short preambles, ...) but most of it isn't configurable. And if you go too N-specific G networks don't know you're there anymore. If there are no other networks near that's fine but if your neighbours still use devices on G you'll get tons of interference.

 

I've done the benchmarks here in a clean environment (no other AP's near) and the difference between G/N, N-only and strict N-only in speeds is really, really small.

[riahc3]

Hello,

This is my router TP-Link TL-WR1043ND:

[+BudMan MVC]

Move and copy are different, here you say move ;)

As to this..

"the difference between G/N, N-only and strict N-only in speeds is really, really small."

Your benchmarks are flawed then..

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-basics/30664-5-ways-to-fix-slow-80211n-speed

As we showed in Add, Don't Replace When Upgrading to 802.11n, mixing 11n and "legacy" clients can reduce throughput by 50 to 80%. So if you are mixing old and new devices, you could be shooting yourself in the (throughput) foot. Either upgrade to all 11n clients, or use a separate 802.11g router or AP to handle your "legacy" stuff.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/30224-add-dont-replace-when-upgrading-to-80211n

Maybe your seeing CRAP N speeds is why you don't see a difference when you turn on G/N mode ;) There is NEVER a reason to run G/N together on the same hardware.

You are running mixed - change that to N only.. And turn on rts/cts and enable rts and enable short preamble. What channel you should run would depend on what is in your area fire up say inssider and look

[riahc3]

Hello,

Move and copy are different, here you say move ;)

moving.png

Oops :) I was wondering where you got moving from....but no, this is all copy. Sorry.

Maybe your seeing CRAP N speeds is why you don't see a difference when you turn on G/N mode ;) There is NEVER a reason to run G/N together on the same hardware.

I do have a couple of 802.11g clients around here so I have no choice but to run mixed.

You are running mixed - change that to N only.. And turn on rts/cts and enable rts and enable short preamble. What channel you should run would depend on what is in your area fire up say inssider and look

Ive been running mixed for years now BudMan and this problem never occured. A solution to change it to N only is not possible.

[tonyjr]

Short preamble mode is an option of 802.11b standard that reduces per-frame overhead.

 

• short - Announce short preamble capability. Do not accept connections from clients that do not have this capability.

[riahc3]

Hello,

After enabling the options you mentioned BudMan and restarting, Im getting stable speeds on that same file of about 9.60 MB/s max.... OK for me :)

[+BudMan MVC]

without protection you can get collisions on the network, especially if you have mixed clients..

I have G clients as well, I just run them on their own AP.. How is that not an option - what happened to your old router?

[riahc3]

Hello,

without protection you can get collisions on the network, especially if you have mixed clients..

I have G clients as well, I just run them on their own AP.. How is that not an option - what happened to your old router?

I dont have any "old router" that I know of in my house currently.

[+BudMan MVC]

So you threw it out, sold it? When it could of been your G router ;)

[riahc3]

Hello,

So you threw it out, sold it? When it could of been your G router ;)

No, it just doesnt boot :( It was a good little Asus. RIP.

BTW, having 2 wireless networks, both on 2.4ghz on channel 1 and channel 6 (for example) is a good idea? The less congestion in the airwaves, the better, right?

[+BudMan MVC]

Huh? channel 1 and channel 6 have no overlap at all. So no there no anything with those..

[riahc3]

Hello,

Huh? channel 1 and channel 6 have no overlap at all. So no there no anything with those..

I used those channels as a example of no overlap but even though they dont interfer wouldnt they clog up the airwave?

Well, we have been living with radio, tv, etc for years so...

[+BudMan MVC]

I have my G at 1, my 2.4 N at 11 and my 5ghz at 100, there is no overlap anywhere.. I could even bring up another on -- which keep toying with on 6 as a guest.. But since my wireless is on its own network segment anyway and I only have pinholes into my normal network for like printing. I don't have an issue with just giving them my normal wireless psk, etc.

"wouldnt they clog up the airwave?"

Huh?? Its not a toilet that if you try and shove too much crap into at the same time it overflows ;)