Poor Performance to Samba share with Windows Server 2016 Essentials

[Mikensan]

iperf uses UDP, test using that between client / server and you should see closer to the 867mbit/s.

[Trilex]

31 minutes ago, Mikensan said:

Honestly 55mbyte/s over wifi is pretty decent, I think on my 5g network on a 80hz width I'm getting about that as well. Sadly some of my devices do not support 80hz so I end up reverting back to 40hz. Another limiting factor is wifi by default is half-duplex unless the client/router both support using multiple antennas to overcome it. You will get 867mbit/s for a UDP connection (video streaming) but because TCP has a lot of back and forth chatter (send/receive at the same time) you're only going to get half. This is because it has to stop the download, upload packets, and resume the download.

So basically my max speed is 50MB/s

[Mikensan]

4 minutes ago, Trilex said:

So basically my max speed is 50MB/s

For TCP connections until you get a router / device that supports using multiple antennas, yup. You might get closer to 1gb speeds over powerline but honestly it is a gamble, could get 10 could get 1gb lol.

[KarathKasun]

1 hour ago, Trilex said:

So basically my max speed is 50MB/s

And it halves each time you add a device.  This is why there are WiFi access points with multiple radios, so you can have more clients without dropping speeds as much.  The other bonus is that they can bu used in a ganged mode to get better transfer rates.

[Trilex]

9 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

And it halves each time you add a device.  This is why there are WiFi access points with multiple radios, so you can have more clients without dropping speeds as much.  The other bonus is that they can bu used in a ganged mode to get better transfer rates.

What are some good cheap routers that support full 1Gbps or mote, (TRANSFER Speed) and maybe can be hanged 

[KarathKasun]

1 hour ago, Trilex said:

What are some good cheap routers that support full 1Gbps or mote, (TRANSFER Speed) and maybe can be hanged 

They do not exist.

 

Your best bet is an expensive router that supports SU/MU-MIMO, and then its only download speed that is faster.  And both the router and client device have to support it.

 

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3256905/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-mu-mimo-wi-fi.html

[Trilex]

On 7/3/2019 at 9:57 PM, Mikensan said:

iperf uses UDP, test using that between client / server and you should see closer to the 867mbit/s.

I'll try that l, is there a router that utallizes UDP no TCP 

[KarathKasun]

7 hours ago, Trilex said:

I'll try that l, is there a router that utallizes UDP no TCP 

No. TCP vs UDP is a software thing, not a router thing.

[Mikensan]

22 hours ago, Trilex said:

I'll try that l, is there a router that utallizes UDP no TCP 

As Karath pointed out, it isn't something controlled by your router. UDP is often used for streams such as movies / music - things that you generally want to avoid a delay. However because there is no error-correction, if a packet is dropped then the data is never sent - so for things that need data integrity TCP is used (most common). Imagine if you transfer a file over UDP only for it to corrupt because 1-2 packets weren't sent. In a movie, you just miss a frame, in a file it gets corrupted.

 

To get closer to a gigabit you either need to use MoCA adapters or ethernet over powerline - and this isn't a guarentee.

[Trilex]

14 hours ago, Mikensan said:

As Karath pointed out, it isn't something controlled by your router. UDP is often used for streams such as movies / music - things that you generally want to avoid a delay. However because there is no error-correction, if a packet is dropped then the data is never sent - so for things that need data integrity TCP is used (most common). Imagine if you transfer a file over UDP only for it to corrupt because 1-2 packets weren't sent. In a movie, you just miss a frame, in a file it gets corrupted.

 

To get closer to a gigabit you either need to use MoCA adapters or ethernet over powerline - and this isn't a guarentee.

https://louwrentius.com/achieving-450-mbs-network-file-transfers-using-linux-bonding.html

 

This guide mentions that you can achieve 450MBs transfer speeds via bonding. He also mentioned about creating 4 vlans, otherwise the router or switch would get confused. Could I do this via PFsense. I want to do this as while someone is writing to the share, other uses can't asses the share or it takes to long and it times out. E.g I'm writing 10gigabytes of data at 55MBs via wifi and a TV is struggling to revive bandwidth to stream a video. Would this work? 

 

Thanks

[KarathKasun]

2 hours ago, Trilex said:

https://louwrentius.com/achieving-450-mbs-network-file-transfers-using-linux-bonding.html

 

This guide mentions that you can achieve 450MBs transfer speeds via bonding. He also mentioned about creating 4 vlans, otherwise the router or switch would get confused. Could I do this via PFsense. I want to do this as while someone is writing to the share, other uses can't asses the share or it takes to long and it times out. E.g I'm writing 10gigabytes of data at 55MBs via wifi and a TV is struggling to revive bandwidth to stream a video. Would this work? 

 

Thanks

Just use separate WiFi networks on different channels.

 

Lots of higher end routers allow for this, and in several client installations we have media on one WiFi network and users/data on another.  We also run heavy QoS/shaping to limit each users bandwidth allocation.

 

WiFi sucks, the next gen coming out will be better (primarily because it can do bonding automatically), but its still radio broadcasts using something like 250mw.  There is only so much you can do to increase bandwidth over that kind of connection.

[Trilex]

5 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

Just use separate WiFi networks on different channels.

What do you mean?

[KarathKasun]

9 hours ago, Trilex said:

What do you mean?

Either use multiple cheap WiFi routers as access points to get multiple WiFi networks, or use a single expensive WiFi router that has multiple radios to get multiple WiFi networks.

[Trilex]

11 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

Either use multiple cheap WiFi routers as access points to get multiple WiFi networks, 

doesnt that mean that the server will have to be connected to each of the APs? That would not be practical for me but it can be done. 

[KarathKasun]

12 minutes ago, Trilex said:

doesnt that mean that the server will have to be connected to each of the APs? That would not be practical for me but it can be done. 

No, you can just disable DHCP on the routers and use them as "dumb" access points.  You connect them to the network with their normal LAN ports, not their WAN ports.

 

Just make sure that you set them to a static IP on your network so you can actually admin them without having to jump through a bunch of hoops.

[Trilex]

15 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

No, you can just disable DHCP on the routers and use them as "dumb" access points.  You connect them to the network with their normal LAN ports, not their WAN ports.

 

Just make sure that you set them to a static IP on your network so you can actually admin them without having to jump through a bunch of hoops.

Yes, this could work but if you went this way of "dumb access points" you would run into some issues 

 

-lets say Pc1 is connected to r1 and pc 2 is connected to r2 and the two routers are daisy chained together. if Pc1 is writing at full gigabit speeds, Pc2 is unable to do anything (as r2 is connected r1 which then to main router which is connected to server) . this is an issue if you were to have multiple servers running though one cord 

- yes, you could run each router back to the main switch/router but if getting the best speeds is your goal, go ethernet. in this case the goal is to have Pc2 able to browse or watch a movie while Pc1 is writing at Gigabit speeds VIA wifi.  

 

-secondly plugging a cord into the LAN port of the "dumb AP" will take up a port on the router meaning some routers only have 3 left which can be incontinent at times. Also running wires along your house is not cost effective and thats why wifi is a thing. 

 

- also by make a "dumb AP' wont that mean there is another ssid, which means it is hard to acess other devices on another network (like printer) this just brings "guesswork" into the equation(and makes life HARDER). Is this why you said to plug it into LAN and not WAN? Regardless switching wifi networks can be really annoying just to continue watching a movie. E.g your watching a movie with the boys and someone decides to copy there entire backup of their computer, so you have to stop the movie and change wifi. (also if there is no other signal for another "Dumb AP" where ever you watching the movie and the person copying files is on the same AP as you, you cant do anything, thus your stuck buffering or until the other persons transfer finishes." 

 

Would pfsense work,as it really advanced?

 

Thanks 

[KarathKasun]

1 hour ago, Trilex said:

Yes, this could work but if you went this way of "dumb access points" you would run into some issues 

 

-lets say Pc1 is connected to r1 and pc 2 is connected to r2 and the two routers are daisy chained together. if Pc1 is writing at full gigabit speeds, Pc2 is unable to do anything (as r2 is connected r1 which then to main router which is connected to server) . this is an issue if you were to have multiple servers running though one cord 

- yes, you could run each router back to the main switch/router but if getting the best speeds is your goal, go ethernet. in this case the goal is to have Pc2 able to browse or watch a movie while Pc1 is writing at Gigabit speeds VIA wifi.  

 

-secondly plugging a cord into the LAN port of the "dumb AP" will take up a port on the router meaning some routers only have 3 left which can be incontinent at times. Also running wires along your house is not cost effective and thats why wifi is a thing. 

 

- also by make a "dumb AP' wont that mean there is another ssid, which means it is hard to acess other devices on another network (like printer) this just brings "guesswork" into the equation(and makes life HARDER). Is this why you said to plug it into LAN and not WAN? Regardless switching wifi networks can be really annoying just to continue watching a movie. E.g your watching a movie with the boys and someone decides to copy there entire backup of their computer, so you have to stop the movie and change wifi. (also if there is no other signal for another "Dumb AP" where ever you watching the movie and the person copying files is on the same AP as you, you cant do anything, thus your stuck buffering or until the other persons transfer finishes." 

 

Would pfsense work,as it really advanced?

 

Thanks 

Wired ethernet does not work that way by default.  With minimal QoS, which is pretty universally supported, when both PCs access the network over GbE their speed will be 500mbit.

 

No guesswork, you connect media, IoT, and other low bandwidth devices like printers, tablets, and phones up to one AP and computers or high bandwidth devices to the other.  Because both AP's share the same wired back end network, all devices behave as if they are on the same network.  Think of multiple dumb APs as having multiple hubs connected to the same network.  All devices on one hub/AP share the same bandwidth pool.

 

In an ideal world, your in home server connection will not share any common route that leads to the internet.  That way if one device is doing heavy lifting on the server, you dont crap out the other connections.  This would mean that the AP used for the server connection should be on its own port of your primary switch.  OR, you can connect the server directly to the switch integrated with that AP.  In which case you could bang away at the server and no other connection would ever know about it.

 

I would have to MSPaint some example topologies to really make what I am saying clear I think.

[Trilex]

1 hour ago, KarathKasun said:

Wired ethernet does not work that way by default.  With minimal QoS, which is pretty universally supported, when both PCs access the network over GbE their speed will be 500mbit.

i know that it does that but only when multiple users are reading and writing. My problem is that when one user is writing all bandwidth coming to that computer is allocated to the best read and write, thus trying to view the files in windows file explorer is TREMENDOUSLY SLOW. 

 

btw so i have to do is plug my cable from my main router into the AP. (Plug and Play?) wont anyone connecting to the router have no internet as its not in the WAN port?

Thanks 

[KarathKasun]

4 minutes ago, Trilex said:

i know that it does that but only when multiple users are reading and writing. My problem is that when one user is writing all bandwidth coming to that computer is allocated to the best read and write, thus trying to view the files in windows file explorer is TREMENDOUSLY SLOW.

 

Thanks 

That is also true if the HDD is in your local system generally.  If you are using a cheap HDD and saturating it with reads/writes then going through folders will be slow AF.

[Trilex]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

That is also true if the HDD is in your local system generally.  If you are using a cheap HDD and saturating it with reads/writes then going through folders will be slow AF.

btw so i have to do is plug my cable from my main router into the AP. (Plug and Play?) wont anyone connecting to the router have no internet as its not in the WAN port?

 

thanks

 

[KarathKasun]

4 minutes ago, Trilex said:

btw so i have to do is plug my cable from my main router into the AP. (Plug and Play?) wont anyone connecting to the router have no internet as its not in the WAN port?

 

thanks

 

Disable DHCP on the "dumb AP" router first, otherwise it can bring your whole network down.

 

Generally I do this with a laptop plugged directly into the AP to set it up before connecting it to the network.  Just make sure that the APs IP address works in your network or you will not be able to access its configuration UI.

 

After that, plug one of its "client side" ethernet ports (usually labeled 1-4) into one of your internet routers client side ports.

[Trilex]

14 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Disable DHCP on the "dumb AP" router first, otherwise it can bring your whole network down.

 

Generally I do this with a laptop plugged directly into the AP to set it up before connecting it to the network.  Just make sure that the APs IP address works in your network or you will not be able to access its configuration UI.

 

After that, plug one of its "client side" ethernet ports (usually labeled 1-4) into one of your internet routers client side ports.

will i have internet tho

[KarathKasun]

3 minutes ago, Trilex said:

will i have internet tho

Yes, as long as your primary router is providing DHCP, that will propagate to the other AP... giving you internet on both WiFi networks.

 

one sec...

[Trilex]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

Yes, as long as your primary router is providing DHCP, that will propagate to the other AP... giving you internet on both WiFi networks.

 

one sec...

if i set the ssid of both routers to the same one will my devices switch between the stronger signal one? 

[KarathKasun]

Connection will look something like this...

 

Modem -> "master" router -> "dumb AP" router

 

OR

 

Modem/router combo -> "dumb AP" router