skypilot Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 is there an advantage to using both wireless and wired network connections at the same time on one PC? Will both connections be used when transferring 1.3Tb of data thereby shortening the time to transfer? I would be using 100meg NIC and 802.11g wireless, through through a 100meg router. (thinking aloud) I guess it comes down to the router being 100 meg whether or not it is wireless or wired? I can run a temporary 10m n/w cable so might just settle on using the wired connection for the data transfer. (1.3tb / 100meg = 13 hours to transfer? or is that 1.3tbytes / 100megbits = 104 hours (4.3 days?)) I think I will go for the 13 or so hours. Then again I might just get a 1.5Tb disk and plug it into the other SATA port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Not sure... I was setting up a new PC in the office and noticed that it allows only one type of connection at a time (Vista). So my PC near the router modem is wired and the other PCs connect wireless to the same router modem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 You can't , under normal circumstances the PC will not allow simultanious connection to a remote server IP or LAN for than matter without additional software. You can have some one shareing your PC's connection to the Web through a wireless connection to it but not run two diffenent data connections to the same source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skypilot Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 I am pretty sure it will pick up an IP address for both connections, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumman Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 is there an advantage to using both wireless and wired network connections at the same time on one PC? Will both connections be used when transferring 1.3Tb of data thereby shortening the time to transfer? I would be using 100meg NIC and 802.11g wireless, through through a 100meg router. (thinking aloud) I guess it comes down to the router being 100 meg whether or not it is wireless or wired? I can run a temporary 10m n/w cable so might just settle on using the wired connection for the data transfer. (1.3tb / 100meg = 13 hours to transfer? or is that 1.3tbytes / 100megbits = 104 hours (4.3 days?)) I think I will go for the 13 or so hours. Then again I might just get a 1.5Tb disk and plug it into the other SATA port. It's common in server environments to put two NICs in the server and double the throughput across the network. Never tried it on a desktop O/S though. But it's not clear where you want to transfer from. If it's from another machine on the same LAN, your calculations are incorrect. Your LAN would run at a theoretical 100 megabits per second. That's 10 megabytes per second or 36GB per hour. So your 1.3TB should take about 2-3 minutes, in theory. It will no doubt take longer because of various factors. 802.11g runs at a theoretical 56mbps, but you would rarely achieve that speed. Trying to get two net connections working would seem to be of dubious benefit. If you are talking about downloading from the Internet though, transfer speed is dependent on the speed of your ISP connection and the route to the server. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Network server architecture with managed switches is a VERY different environment to the home network. Irrespective of different IP's in the network XP is basically dumb and cannot deal with traffic in such a way. Your network should be 100 Gb LAN any way and the Wireless WILL be MUCH slower, so you will in effect be slowing your network down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumman Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Your network should be 100 Gb LAN any way and the Wireless WILL be MUCH slower, so you will in effect be slowing your network down. 100 Gb LAN in a domestic environment?? Don't think so Mozz. Most domestic LANs in my experience are based on Cat5 or Cat5e cabling and 100BASE-T switches, routers and NICs, i.e. limited to 100Mb/sec. You might squeeze 1Gb out of the cable if the cable runs are short and the rest of the network is gigabit-capable. As for 100Gb, that's barely out of the standards bodies, and only achievable over fibre. 100Mb/s is more than adequate for any domestic application anyway. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Technicalities aside ..... the speed will be limited, not by the number/bandwidth to your computer, but by the router. This, it would seem, is 100Mb/s. There will be no benefit in having more than one connection to the network, because the speed on the other end (to the other computer) will still be limited to this theoretical maximum. ie 100Mb/s. I would suggest, however, that anyone thinking of setting up a home network goes the extra mile, and uses a Gigabit (1000Mb/s) backbone - particularly if you move lots of large files around. The difference is astounding, and the price is only minimally higher. Most new motherboards have Gigabit NICs built-in. The effect is more-or-less like accessing local files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skypilot Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well the results are in Wireless - 2.70Mb/s - (about) 1.5 gigs in about 8 Minutes 100meg Lan - about 10mb/s - (about) 10gig in about 17 minutes Both wireless and wired are not used at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyHill Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Skypilot is correct. The PC will use one or the other. Since the NIC is 100Mb and the 8102.11g wireless is 54Mb then the PC will use the higher speed - the NIC. Both will get unique DHCP addresses from the router. If you disconnect the NIC during the download, the PC will switch to the lower speed wireless, and back again when the NIC reconnects. Using two NICs to increase the bandwidth requires special programming of the network. In a Cisco world its called EtherChannel and the two ports are configured to act a single pipe. Cisco allow up to 8 ports to be so configured. We currently have 2 x 1Gb fibre ports connected as a 2Gb EtherChannel from a production SAN to our central Core Switch. We are about to add two more ports to it. If you just connect them without setting them up as EtherChannels you create a loop that causes flapping on the network and can bring the whole lot crashing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I believe thats what I said earlier in the thread even if I was working on another project and stated Gbit instead of Mbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.