Two computers, different download speeds.

On 2/3/2011 7:12 AM, amdx wrote:
> I have two computers setting next to each other and
> connected the same, as far as I know.
> (I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
>
> The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
> Using>speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
> 12.18 Mb/s
>
> The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
> It has a download speed of,
> 3.82 Mb/s
>
> I'm using Firefox, both computers are hardwired to a linksys 54G router,
> and an Arris CM550A modem.
>
> Why is the Dell so slow, (other than it is a Dell)?
> What can I do to speed up the download speed.
> Thanks, Mikek
>
>
Many have suggested things to try already.

My take would be to verify the Ethernet ports themselves are set up the
same. One might be running at half duplex, 10mb while the other might
be at full duplex 100mb. Most modern router ports will try and match
what ever the computer is set at.

Another test might be to boot the same version of Puppy or Lucid Puppy
Linux from CD's on both machines and see what the speed are like. That
would eliminate those pesky Windows Ethernet problems and other
configuration differences that may have crept into the two machines.

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:12:03 -0600, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I have two computers setting next to each other and
>>connected the same, as far as I know.
>>(I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
>
> Connected via wireless, wired ethernet, or two tin cans and a string?

Wired ethernet.


>>The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
>>Using >speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
>>12.18 Mb/s
>>
>>The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
>> It has a download speed of,
>>3.82 Mb/s
>>
>>I'm using Firefox, both computers are hardwired to a linksys 54G router,
>> and an Arris CM550A modem.


> Linksys does not make a 54G router. What is the real Linksys model
> number including the hardware version? Extra credit if you know the
> firmware verison. The operating systems would be nice to know.



Such a task master :-) The router is a WRT54G v5
Is v5 the firmware version?

Operating systems Faster HP is XP Media Center version 2002 SP2
Slower Dell XP Pro Version 2002 SP3

Uhm.. I noted the Dell's clockspeed is 1.8Ghz not 2.8Ghz as I said
previously,
so that may make a little more difference.


> Some routers are really slow:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/>

Ok, looks like the WRT54G is slow, but it is still only
one computer that is slow relative to the other.
I will wire directly to the computers just as a test.
(eliminateing the router)

>
>>Why is the Dell so slow, (other than it is a Dell)?
>> What can I do to speed up the download speed.
>


> My guess(tm) is that you have a buffer window issue with your
> unspecified operating system TCP/IP stack.
> <http://www.dslreports.com/faq/6266>
>
> However, using the internet download speed to "optimize" your TCP/IP
> settings is kinda marginal. You might want to setup IPERF or JPERF
> and run a local test without the internet. You might be surprised
> with what you find. Bug me for instuctions.
> <http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
> <http://code.google.com/p/xjperf/>
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558
> # http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:23:36 -0600, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Such a task master :-)

Yep. You supply the data and I'll supply the abuse. The more
*NUMBERS* you supply, the better answers you'll get (unless you enjoy
decoding generalization, pontifications, and guesswork).

>The router is a WRT54G v5
>Is v5 the firmware version?

Barf. It's the hardware version. Please send it to the recyclers. I
have a fairly large pile of WRT54G v5 and v6 routers that have been
retired from various customers due to flaky operation, chronic hangs,
and unscheduled reboots. Installing DD-WRT seems to help on some, but
the hangs and reboots never seem to go away. Last time I tested one
using iPerf, the best I could do through the router was a very
inconsistent 10Mbits/sec. How you managed to get 12Mbits/sec through
it will remain a mystery. Well, I was using TCP and Speedtest.net is
probably using UDP.
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/26843-linksyswrt54gv5reallyisalousyrouter>

>Operating systems Faster HP is XP Media Center version 2002 SP2
> Slower Dell XP Pro Version 2002 SP3

They're basically the same operating system. However, there were a
mess of network related improvements in SP3, so you might consider
installing it on your Media Center machine, which should slow it down
to the same speed as the unspecified model Dell.

>Uhm.. I noted the Dell's clockspeed is 1.8Ghz not 2.8Ghz as I said
>previously,
>so that may make a little more difference.

Not really. The machines are so much faster than the ethernet that
once you get above about a Pentium 133, the CPU speed doesn't make
much difference. I'm sure you would hear the screaming if the network
traffic sucked 100% of the CPU cycles on a slow machine. Try the task
manager to see what it's doing, or bettery yet, System Explorer:


>> Some routers are really slow:
>> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/>
>
>Ok, looks like the WRT54G is slow, but it is still only
>one computer that is slow relative to the other.
>I will wire directly to the computers just as a test.
>(eliminateing the router)

Try it using JPERF or IPERF.

>> My guess(tm) is that you have a buffer window issue with your
>> unspecified operating system TCP/IP stack.
>> <http://www.dslreports.com/faq/6266>
>>
>> However, using the internet download speed to "optimize" your TCP/IP
>> settings is kinda marginal. You might want to setup IPERF or JPERF
>> and run a local test without the internet. You might be surprised
>> with what you find. Bug me for instuctions.
>> <http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
>> <http://code.google.com/p/xjperf/>


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 4/02/2011 3:04 AM, amdx wrote:
> "Charlie Hoffpauir"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:12:03 -0600, "amdx"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I have two computers setting next to each other and
>>> connected the same, as far as I know.
>>> (I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
>>>
>>> The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
>>> Using>speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
>>> 12.18 Mb/s
>>>
>>> The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
>>> It has a download speed of,
>>> 3.82 Mb/s
>>>
>>> I'm using Firefox, both computers are hardwired to a linksys 54G router,
>>> and an Arris CM550A modem.
>>>
>>> Why is the Dell so slow, (other than it is a Dell)?
>>> What can I do to speed up the download speed.
>>> Thanks, Mikek
>>>
>>
>> Just wondering.. have you tried the test multiple times? Have you
>> tried swapping cables to see if you get the same results?
>> --
>> Charlie Hoffpauir
> Yes, multiple times, no to swapping cables, will try this evening.
> Mikek
>
>
I expect you will find the network card chip sets differ and swapping
the cable will make a negligible difference

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:12:03 -0600, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I have two computers setting next to each other and
>connected the same, as far as I know.
>(I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
>
>The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
>Using >speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
>12.18 Mb/s
>
>The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
> It has a download speed of,
>3.82 Mb/s
//
> What can I do to speed up the download speed.
> Thanks, Mikek
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php
Might help. I used it to good effect in my windows 98 days.
There is a new version for XP.
[]'s

"Dr Who" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:12:03 -0600, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > I have two computers setting next to each other and
>> > connected the same, as far as I know.
>> > (I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
>> >
>> > The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
>> > Using >speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
>> > 12.18 Mb/s
>> >
>> > The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
>> > It has a download speed of,
>> > 3.82 Mb/s
>> >
>> > I'm using Firefox, both computers are hardwired to a linksys 54G
>> > router, and an Arris CM550A modem.
>> >
>> > Why is the Dell so slow, (other than it is a Dell)?
>> > What can I do to speed up the download speed.
>> > Thanks, Mikek
>> >
>>
>> On a good day, Internet speed tests are unreliable because they use
>> such a small chunk of data with which to test. You're really getting
>> the tiniest snapshot there.
>>
>> Instead, if you have a third data source on the LAN, I would download
>> a large file from there, first by one computer and then by the second
>> computer. Since the end to end path is within the LAN, it removes all
>> of the unknowns and inconsistencies of the Internet connection, which
>> will be identical for both computers.
>>
>> During the download, watch the throughput of the download in real
>> time. Does it repeatedly burst, pause, burst, or does it go to a
>> certain speed and generally stay there? If you use a Windows OS that's
>> less than 10 years old, you can see your real time network activity on
>> the Networking tab in Taskmanager, or you can install a small utility
>> to do the same, such as DUMeter or Bandwidth Monitor or a free program
>> that is a clone of those, but I forgot the name of.
>>
>> Alternatively, check out Iperf or Jperf, a couple of benchmarking
>> utilities. Again, keep the testing within the LAN, if possible, even
>> if you have to use the two computers as a source for the other.
>>
>> Assuming your LAN testing continues to indicate one being faster than
>> the other, check out your NIC settings (negotiated connection speed,
>> duplex settings, frame size, etc.). I don't think the CPU differences
>> are to blame here, but you can see what the CPUs are doing by watching
>> them in Taskmanager during a large download.
>
> I notice you have Avast as the anti-virus.
>
> Great program, but I strongly suggest you turn off network filtering
> (and any other non essential filters) on the low powered Dell.
>
> Avast (particularly The network filter) will DEFINITELY slow down my
> oldish Compaq 2200 notebook.
>
> I recon this is your problem.

Interesting, I disabled Avast and the download speed more than doubled into
the 8 to 10 Mb/s range
verses high 3s before.
When I disabled Avast on the faster HP computer it did not increase the
speed. 12Mb/s may be near the
max the cable system provides.
Thanks, Mikek

amdx wrote:

>
> "Dr Who" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Char Jackson wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:12:03 -0600, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> >>> I have two computers setting next to each other and
> >>> connected the same, as far as I know.
> >>> (I think all connectors on the router are the same speed)
> > > >
> >>> The first one an HP m495c has a 3.2 Ghz clock speed.
> >>> Using >speedtest.net< it has a download speed of,
> >>> 12.18 Mb/s
> > > >
> >>> The second is a Dell GX 260 and has a 2.8 Ghz clock speed.
> >>> It has a download speed of,
> >>> 3.82 Mb/s
> > > >
> >>> I'm using Firefox, both computers are hardwired to a linksys 54G
> >>> router, and an Arris CM550A modem.
> > > >
> >>> Why is the Dell so slow, (other than it is a Dell)?
> >>> What can I do to speed up the download speed.
> >>> Thanks, Mikek
> > > >
> > >
> > > On a good day, Internet speed tests are unreliable because they
> > > use such a small chunk of data with which to test. You're really
> > > getting the tiniest snapshot there.
> > >
> > > Instead, if you have a third data source on the LAN, I would
> > > download a large file from there, first by one computer and then
> > > by the second computer. Since the end to end path is within the
> > > LAN, it removes all of the unknowns and inconsistencies of the
> > > Internet connection, which will be identical for both computers.
> > >
> > > During the download, watch the throughput of the download in real
> > > time. Does it repeatedly burst, pause, burst, or does it go to a
> > > certain speed and generally stay there? If you use a Windows OS
> > > that's less than 10 years old, you can see your real time network
> > > activity on the Networking tab in Taskmanager, or you can install
> > > a small utility to do the same, such as DUMeter or Bandwidth
> > > Monitor or a free program that is a clone of those, but I forgot
> > > the name of.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, check out Iperf or Jperf, a couple of benchmarking
> > > utilities. Again, keep the testing within the LAN, if possible,
> > > even if you have to use the two computers as a source for the
> > > other.
> > >
> > > Assuming your LAN testing continues to indicate one being faster
> > > than the other, check out your NIC settings (negotiated
> > > connection speed, duplex settings, frame size, etc.). I don't
> > > think the CPU differences are to blame here, but you can see what
> > > the CPUs are doing by watching them in Taskmanager during a large
> > > download.
> >
> > I notice you have Avast as the anti-virus.
> >
> > Great program, but I strongly suggest you turn off network filtering
> > (and any other non essential filters) on the low powered Dell.
> >
> > Avast (particularly The network filter) will DEFINITELY slow down my
> > oldish Compaq 2200 notebook.
> >
> > I recon this is your problem.
>
> Interesting, I disabled Avast and the download speed more than
> doubled into the 8 to 10 Mb/s range verses high 3s before.
> When I disabled Avast on the faster HP computer it did not increase
> the speed. 12Mb/s may be near the max the cable system provides.
> Thanks, Mikek

The problem is that the processor on the Dell just doesn't have enough
capacity to examine the data without slowing down the through put rate.

I found that Avira is better as an alternative in this respect, but it
increases boot times massively.



--