Text 38440, 62 rader
Skriven 2007-10-24 20:51:14 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 38433 av Jeff Guerdat (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: NAS
===========
 BF>> A SC101T and now I have to buy new wireless accesspoints as well, the 54
 BF>> Mbit/s is too slow....it's a big difference to when I connect via a cable
 BF>> to the switch and then the next question pops up. When both the cable and
 BF>> the wireless are in use, does the computer use both so the speed is 54 +
 BF>> 100 or does it only use one and give priority to the cable?

 JG> Since it's a router with a switch, it's likely that both ports get equal

No, only a switch, the router is placed 200 m from here and operates via a
radio-
link.

 JG> priority (hubs share bandwidth, switches are dedicated).  However, it may
 JG> depend on the design of the switch's backplane - if there's not enough
 JG> internal bandwidth, things could suffer.  The easy thing to do would be to
 JG> time a large transfer separately and then together.

Ok. I have a 12 GB video file I could time.

 JG> If, however, you're referring to the ability of the SC101T to supply data
 JG> to both, that could be an issue depending on how you've connected it to
 JG> the router.

No, only transferring data between one computer and the SC101T.

 JG> I haven't seen or noticed a gigabit-capable home router yet
 JG> (that doesn't mean they don't exist) so you're connecting it via 100Mb as
 JG> well as to the wired computer.  That means the wired computer could
 JG> saturate the interface, hurting performance for both the wired and
 JG> wireless computers.  The only way to fix this would be to have a slower
 JG> connection to the wired computer than to the SC101T.  You sure wouldn't
 JG> want to drop back to 10Mb so you may just need to time your transfers or
 JG> live with it.  Testing would tell you which connection would be hurt worse
 JG> - wired or wireless.

I don't have any wired computers any more and why I ask is that it went much
faster when I connected the wireless laptop with a cable to the switch.

 JG>>> even access the device - I'll wager it adds a new protocol for access.

 BF>> On every computer in the network that shall have access to the drive.

 JG> Yeah, I thought that was a bit cumbersome but if it helps overall
 JG> performance, so be it.

I had to.

 JG> One question I'd have is whether a different OS
 JG> (Linux, MacOS, etc.) would have access to the files.  If you don't have a
 JG> heterogeneous network it doesn't matter.

Only XP machines.

 BF>> The Netgear support obviously didn't have a clue what they were talking
 BF>> about.

 JG> Level one support frequently doesn't...

Not even the Symantec support could answer a question I had about NIS 2008.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)