Recommended Posts

First off I doubt this is a driver problem, even though I'm not well educated about Linux. The problem is my internet is being extremely spott (like approximately 40% to 65% of the time it drops out. That for me is unnacceptable! I have a 5Mb/s downstream with a 1Mb/s upstream. However its not my speed that is the problem it is that it just won't work. This is a consistency problem that has gone cross-OS. Windows 7 and OpenSUSE 11.1 Have both had this problem. So I am lead to believe its hardware not software; however, the dropout is hovering at 20% within Windows and at least it seems that a page will load in Opera 10 (for linux) or Konquerer when it wont load for 10 minutes in Firefox. I am soooooooo frustrated!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: Sorry if there is a similar topic, but I tried searching and said forget it after 10minutes loading time. It took me approximately 15 minutes to load this page. Could it be a botched OpenSuse install perhaps? Anyways specs below:

Motorola SB4100

Realtek RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/843730-nic-or-modem-problem/
Share on other sites

- Make sure you are not connected with both the Ethernet cable AND the USB cable. This can cause problems.

- If possible, try and secure a cheap NIC PCI card to test and see if your (onboard?) NIC is faulty.

- Try rebooting your SurfBoard Modem.

- It may be possible that your modem has gone bad, and you will need a replacement.

@cybertimber2008:

This is my home computer, connected directly to the internet with the modem. Unless I'm missing something else regarding the computer on the network. I'll have to get access to another NIC in the next couple days. Anyways results.

PING google.com (74.125.53.100) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=97.1 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=2 ttl=47 time=96.5 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=3 ttl=47 time=97.7 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=4 ttl=47 time=97.2ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=5 ttl=47 time=96.5ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=6 ttl=47 time=96.9ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=7 ttl=47 time=96.8ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=8 ttl=47 time=96.8ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=9 ttl=47 time=96.7ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=10 ttl=47 time=97.0 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=11 ttl=47 time=97.6 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=12 ttl=47 time=97.8 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=13 ttl=47 time=96.5 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=14 ttl=47 time=96.2 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=15 ttl=47 time=97.3 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=16 ttl=47 time=96.9 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=17 ttl=47 time=98.9 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=18 ttl=47 time=96.7 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=19 ttl=47 time=97.0 ms

64 bytes from pw-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.53.100): icmp_seq=20 ttl=47 time=96.4 ms

--- google.com ping statistics ---

20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19092ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 96.205/97.072/98.986/0.726 ms

PING neowin.net (209.124.63.219) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=50.2 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=46.0 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=46.4 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=47.9 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=46.3 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=46.3 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=46.6 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=46.6 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=49.0 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=46.8 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=11 ttl=52 time=47.1 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=12 ttl=52 time=47.9 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=13 ttl=52 time=47.0 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=14 ttl=52 time=50.7 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=15 ttl=52 time=48.9 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=16 ttl=52 time=46.9 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=17 ttl=52 time=46.1 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=18 ttl=52 time=47.5 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=19 ttl=52 time=48.8 ms

64 bytes from 219.63.124.209.sfldmi01.utropicmedia.net (209.124.63.219): icmp_seq=20 ttl=52 time=47.1 ms

--- neowin.net ping statistics ---

20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 28167ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 46.087/47.567/50.718/1.342 ms

PING yahoo.com (209.131.36.159) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=91.1 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=91.6 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=90.6 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=91.3 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=90.1 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=92.0 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=90.1 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=90.7 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=90.1 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=91.9 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=11 ttl=49 time=90.0 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=12 ttl=49 time=91.2 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=13 ttl=49 time=89.9 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=14 ttl=49 time=90.9 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=15 ttl=49 time=90.4 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=16 ttl=49 time=90.1 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=17 ttl=49 time=91.2 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=18 ttl=49 time=89.9 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=19 ttl=49 time=90.9 ms

64 bytes from b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com (209.131.36.159): icmp_seq=20 ttl=49 time=92.4 ms

--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---

20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19097ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 89.936/90.868/92.426/0.832 ms

PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.69 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.61 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.42 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.40 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2.55 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=2.42 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=2.40 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.40 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.41 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2.44 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.41 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=2.44 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=2.50 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=2.44 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=2.72 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=2.39 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=2.42 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=2.50 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=2.40 ms

64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=2.47 ms

--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---

20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19087ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.394/2.476/2.725/0.099 ms

@jimbo11883:

- Only ethernet plugged in to NIC

- Tomorrow or day after. (and yes it's onboard.)

- Hard and software reboots done.

- Ok can replace them. I just don't know which one (modem/nic) needs replacing if its not software problem (doubt it).

Edited by Jelly Beans

When you say it drops out? Can you not ping your gateway?

Or it could be just a DNS related issue?

Since your directly connected to your modem -- look at the output of ipconfig /all in windows this will show your your ISP gateway.. When you have the problem ping that.. Does it work or fail? Route -n in linux will show you the IP of your gateway. When your having the problem -- try pinging ISP gateway! Or the host your having problems with page coming up.. does it resolve?? Does it not answer.. Do a traceroute to the sites IP.. If its not resolving - you have dns related issue not a connectivity problem.

BTW -- that seems like a pretty ****ty response from your modem for response time.

This is from a VM running on machine connected to the modem through a router - and still like 1/3 the reponse time to modem that your seeing.

--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---

18 packets transmitted, 18 received, 0% packet loss, time 17018ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.730/0.868/1.153/0.111 ms

But those pings are pretty much useless, unless they are during when your saying your having the issue?

Hey Budman,

Not trying to offend you or anything as I am pretty much network handicapped when it comes to this kind of thing, but if it was DNS related wouldn't he have to ping yahoo and google by IP?

That being said, wouldn't the fact that he is pinging them by name say that it is not a dns issue otherwise he would get no response at all??

Like I said, I'm not much good at networking, so am just asking.

Well if he was having the issue at the time when he did the pings then yeah your right.. But its also possible he had those records cached from before he had the problem. If it was dns related.

Just because you can ping a host name does not mean dns is currently working.. Your machine will keep it cached, your router could be caching it, etc. So some sites will work that you have cached, but parts of it might not if on another host, say images.somedomain.net for example vs www.somedomain.net -- depending the TTL of the records, etc.

Just look at your local cache and you will see the TTL of the records.

www.neowin.net

----------------------------------------

Record Name . . . . . : www.neowin.net

Record Type . . . . . : 5

Time To Live . . . . : 292

Data Length . . . . . : 4

Section . . . . . . . : Answer

CNAME Record . . . . : neowin.net

www.neowin.net

---------------------------------------

Record Name . . . . . : www.neowin.net

Record Type . . . . . : 5

Time To Live . . . . : 273

Data Length . . . . . : 4

Section . . . . . . . : Answer

CNAME Record . . . . : neowin.net

If DNS does not answer fast enough, then it can be cached as bad - and now you have to wait for the timeout before the machine will even query dns for it again..

Again just because you can resolve a hostname does not mean your not having dns related problems. Quite often they show up with taking a long time for pages to load, or some pages work, others do not, etc. Because it answer one time, but not the next, etc. But once you have the record cached local you will not have to query dns again until the ttl expires.

BTW no offense taken your question was actually a very good one!! Which sometimes can be very rare around here ;)

Edited by BudMan
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months¨ I'd prefer to see the lowest price in over a year
    • Glad these prices are starting to come down, but that is still crazy. I bought the 2TB 9100 Pro (slightly more expensive version with PCIe 5.0) last year for $240.
    • The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months by Sayan Sen Yesterday, we covered a really good deal wherein you can get a 4TB TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 NVMe PCIe Gen4 SSD for a low price of just $400 with a special discount coupon. That's just $100 per TB, making it a very good offer during these hard times. The deal is still live, so you can check it out in its dedicated article here if you do not want to miss out. Meanwhile, if you don't have that kind of budget but still wish to buy an SSD for a good price, the 2TB variant of the TeamGroup SSD at $280 its lowest price in over three months. Meanwhile, those seeking 2TB but faster performance can check out Samsung's 990 PRO, which has hit the lowest price also in the last quarter or so, as it's on sale for $370 (purchase links under the specs table down below). Thus, you want a faster drive, get the 990 Pro, or you want more capacity, grab the TeamGroup 4TB linked in the first para. The 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 2TB Samsung 990 PRO 2TB Interface PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 1.4 PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 M.2 2280 Controller InnoGrit Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC 3D TLC DRAM Cache None (HMB supported) 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 5,000 MB/s 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 4,500 MB/s 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 600,000 IOPS Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 700,000 IOPS Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,300 TBW 1,200 TBW MTBF 3,000,000 hours 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink Patented Graphene Heat Spreader No Get them at the links below: Samsung 990 PRO SSD 2TB (MZ-V9P2T0B/AM): $369.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 2TB SSD (TM8FFE002T0C129): $279.99 (Sold by TeamGroup, Shipped by Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • If you can't spell a simple word that 2nd graders learn, your entire argument is suspect.
    • And here goes the "Won't someone think of the children" brigade. Get stuffed mate. This has NOTHING to do with making the internet safe. It's about tracking adults, spying on your online activity, and sending the boys around when they don't like something you post. Also, again, parliament have voted TWICE against this, and Starmer is going ahead anyway. THAT is anti-democratic bullsh**. They will use this law to track you, they will use this law to control you, and they will use this law to punish you if they don't like what you do, even if it's legal. And your data? Say bye bye to that. It'll be on the darkweb in weeks. I'm not some rando online. I've been an IT professional for 40 years, many of it in security. I know exactly what this means and what will happen to your data. I do not consent and I will not comply.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      520
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!