PDA

View Full Version : SB3 drop out when transfering large files



rbl
2008-04-07, 11:52
I find if I transfer large files on my wireless laptop then I get massive drop out on the SB3. Is there a way to increase the network priority of the SB3 (I am sure this is a network thing, not a processor problem). The problem seems worse when I run two sync'd SB3s.

I have SS 6.5 running on an XP Pro desktop that is hard wired to the router. The SB3 and Vista laptop then connect wirelessly. The music folder is on a Buffalo Linkstation LAN drive that is also hardwired into the router.

aubuti
2008-04-07, 12:06
Your router is a likely culprit. Some routers will allow you to give higher priority to certain file types. One that I know of is the Linksys WRT54GL, for which 3rd party firmware is available that can do this, though I haven't had to try it myself yet.

Another possibility is to use a wired connection for your SB3, either using straightforward ethernet cable or homeplug adapters.

rbl
2008-04-07, 13:32
By coincidence I actually have a LinkSys WRT54GX. Any idea how I get this software, or what it is called. Presumably I just prioritise .flac files and off I go!

aubuti
2008-04-07, 18:12
By coincidence I actually have a LinkSys WRT54GX. Any idea how I get this software, or what it is called. Presumably I just prioritise .flac files and off I go!
Unfortunately, there are some big differences between the WRT54GL and the WRT54GX, and the biggest is that the GX doesn't do 3rd party firmware. You could check out your manual to see if the GX does any kind of prioritization, but I strongly doubt it.

If you're interested to know more about the software (e.g., you're considering getting a different router), Wikipedia has a good set of links to the 3rd party possibilities with the GL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series). But if possible, I'd try a wired solution for the SB3 first.

rbl
2008-04-08, 02:40
But if possible, I'd try a wired solution for the SB3 first.

Thanks, but does a wired solution actually help? Surely it just stops intereference, but the network speed won't be much better (signal strength in my flat is pretty good). I do think about upgrading to a gigabit setup which I guess would help, but these gigabit setups still seem to be fairly unusual, and I suspect my Buffalo Linkstation wont benefit anyway.

Is there a way to monitor what is going on on a network from my laptop?

peter
2008-04-08, 04:30
rbl wrote:
> aubuti;288831 Wrote:
>
>> But if possible, I'd try a wired solution for the SB3 first.
>>
>
> Thanks, but does a wired solution actually help? Surely it just stops
> intereference, but the network speed won't be much better (signal
> strength in my flat is pretty good). I do think about upgrading to a
> gigabit setup which I guess would help, but these gigabit setups still
> seem to be fairly unusual, and I suspect my Buffalo Linkstation wont
> benefit anyway.
>

Wired is always better than wireless.

> Is there a way to monitor what is going on on a network from my laptop?
>

Wireshark is an option. but that usually won't work with a wifi interface

Regards,
Peter

bpa
2008-04-08, 04:41
but the network speed won't be much better (signal strength in my flat is pretty good).

Speed will be much better - 100mbs/sec vs at best 54mb/sec. I think Wifi also has dead time between packets which will further reduce throughput.

Even if you manage 54mbs/sec - it is shared amongst all users whereas with a switched 100mbs each device has 100mb/sec to the switch. This means on an all wireless network - PC-A sending a file to PC-B will affect an SB3 getting audio from PC-C. With a switched network - the PC-A to PC-B traffic will not affect the audio traffic.

aubuti
2008-04-08, 04:43
Thanks, but does a wired solution actually help? Surely it just stops intereference, but the network speed won't be much better (signal strength in my flat is pretty good). I do think about upgrading to a gigabit setup which I guess would help, but these gigabit setups still seem to be fairly unusual, and I suspect my Buffalo Linkstation wont benefit anyway.

Is there a way to monitor what is going on on a network from my laptop?
I would expect regular 100Mbs ethernet to be at least 2x faster than your wifi, even if your wifi has no interference. Certainly try that before investing in anything gigabit.

rbl
2008-04-08, 04:53
Wireshark is an option. but that usually won't work with a wifi interface


Does that mean I have to run it from my wired desktop, and not my wireless laptop, or does it mean I wont see the wireless activity anyway (e.g. the SB3 activity).
Many thanks for your help ...

bpa
2008-04-08, 04:58
Microsoft has a network monitor which also monitors Wifi - but I think it is Vista only.

Use this as a start point
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=18b1d59d-f4d8-4213-8d17-2f6dde7d7aac&displaylang=en

and here http://blogs.technet.com/netmon/

peter
2008-04-08, 04:59
rbl wrote:
> peter;288977 Wrote:
>
>> Wireshark is an option. but that usually won't work with a wifi
>> interface
>>
>>
>
> Does that mean I have to run it from my wired desktop, and not my
> wireless laptop, or does it mean I wont see the wireless activity
> anyway (e.g. the SB3 activity).
> Many thanks for your help ...
>


This is a fairly complicated matter. Wired networks usually employ a
switch for distributing the traffic, in the old days this used to be a
hub. Switches separate the traffic in such a way that you normally only
can see the traffic to and from your own PC (the one that's running
wireshark). If that's where your SC is running that may be good enough.
If it's not you'll need a switch that can copy all traffic onto one
port. I have such a beast but they're usually much more expensive.

Regards,
Peter

peter
2008-04-08, 05:02
aubuti wrote:
> rbl;288955 Wrote:
>
>> Thanks, but does a wired solution actually help? Surely it just stops
>> intereference, but the network speed won't be much better (signal
>> strength in my flat is pretty good). I do think about upgrading to a
>> gigabit setup which I guess would help, but these gigabit setups still
>> seem to be fairly unusual, and I suspect my Buffalo Linkstation wont
>> benefit anyway.
>>
>> Is there a way to monitor what is going on on a network from my laptop?
>>
> I would expect regular 100Mbs ethernet to be at least 2x faster than
> your wifi, even if your wifi has no interference. Certainly try that
> before investing in anything gigabit.
>

Gigabit is not really that expensive any more, but it won't give you a
10x speedup either. I get about 200 Mbps with file trnsfers between my
laptops and server over GB ethernet. With wireless I would be very
pleased to achieve 54Mbit with real world filetransfers, I don't think
I've ever seen that.

Regards,
Peter

aubuti
2008-04-08, 05:53
[color=blue]
Gigabit is not really that expensive any more, but it won't give you a
10x speedup either. I get about 200 Mbps with file trnsfers between my
laptops and server over GB ethernet. With wireless I would be very
pleased to achieve 54Mbit with real world filetransfers, I don't think
I've ever seen that.

Regards,
Peter
True about the hardware not being that much more expensive, and if you're going to pull cable it might as well be cat5e or cat6. But getting gigabit speeds depends as much on how you pull the cable (stresses, bends, etc.). The point I was trying to make was to try it out with his existing 100Mbs equipment first.

peter
2008-04-08, 06:01
aubuti wrote:
> peter;288984 Wrote:
>
>> [color=blue]
>> Gigabit is not really that expensive any more, but it won't give you a
>>
>> 10x speedup either. I get about 200 Mbps with file trnsfers between my
>>
>> laptops and server over GB ethernet. With wireless I would be very
>> pleased to achieve 54Mbit with real world filetransfers, I don't think
>>
>> I've ever seen that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter
>>
> True about the hardware not being that much more expensive, and if
> you're going to pull cable it might as well be cat5e or cat6. But
> getting gigabit speeds depends as much on how you pull the cable
> (stresses, bends, etc.). The point I was trying to make was to try it
> out with his existing 100Mbs equipment first.
>

That should be good enough indeed.

Regards,
Peter