10baseT ethernet - bottleneck or not?

[Stan The Man]

I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.

The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.

I wondered if the onboard ethernet was the problem since I'm the only
one using wires and a specialist networking techie at Apple UK support
confirmed that 10baseT would not be able to handle the full 2Mbps. He
said I should divide 10 by 8 to get the max throughput, ie 1.25Mbps.

I reported this to my ISP and he said that the Apple techie was wrong
and that I should see the full 2Mbps via 10baseT. His full reply was:

>The network may be 10Mbps, but it's well-known that Ethernet , being a
>CSMA/CD type network, will not achieve anything like that in practice,
>although 2Mbps does seem extremely low. The figure I had in mind was
>something like 50%-70% of the available bandwidth, but one reference I
>found quoted 40%:
>
>The CSMA/CD article wrote:
>"Performance of CSMA / CD
>
>"It is simple to calculate the performance of a CSMA/CD network where
>only one node attempts to transmit at any time. In this case, the node
>may saturate the network and near 100% utilisation of the network may
>be achieved, providing almost 10 Mbps of throughput on a 10 Mbps LAN.
>
>"However, when two or more nodes attempt to transmit at the same time,
>the performance of Ethernet is less predictable (and not covered by
>this course). The fall in utilisation and throughput occurs because
>some bandwidth is wasted by collisions and back-off delays. In
>practice, a busy shared 10 Mbps Ethernet network will typically supply
>2-4 Mbps of throughput to the nodes connected to it.
>
>"As the level of utilisation of the network increases, particularly if
>there are many nodes competing to share the bandwidth, an overload
>condition may occur. In this case, the throughput of Ethernet LANs
>reduces very considerably, and much of the capacity is wasted by the
>CSMA/CD algorithm, and very little is available for sending useful
>data. This is the reason why a shared Ethernet LAN should not connect
>more than 1024 computers. Many Engineers use a threshold of 40%
>Utilisation to determine if a LAN is overloaded. A LAN with a higher
>utilisation will observe a high collision rate, and likely a very
>variable transmission time (due to back off). Separating the LAN in to
>two or more collision domains using bridges or switches would likely
>provide a significant benefit (assuming appropriate positioning of the
>bridges or switches).
>
>"Shared networks may also be constructed using Fast Ethernet, operating
>at 100 Mbps. Since fast Ethernet always uses fibre or twisted pair, a
>hub or switch is always required."
>
>
>A home network with a handful of nodes would not normally be considered
>a "busy network", so it does raise the question of what protocols are
>in use on the network? Is a lot of unnecessary traffic being generated?
>
>
>On the face of it, it does seem unlikely that a 10Mbps Ethernet should
>not be able to keep pace with your 2Mbps/256kbps ADSL connection.

Can anyone here please clarify this for me. Who is right? TIA.

Stan

[matt]

"Stan The Man" <macho@mac.com> wrote in message
news:220920030008177794%macho@mac.com...

> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
>
> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
>
> I wondered if the onboard ethernet was the problem since I'm the only
> one using wires and a specialist networking techie at Apple UK support
> confirmed that 10baseT would not be able to handle the full 2Mbps. He
> said I should divide 10 by 8 to get the max throughput, ie 1.25Mbps.

I'd say its more likely the mac itself thats the problem. The car may well
be able to manage 10MBps, but the graphics updating, file downloading and
file saving to harddisk may not be able to cope. I'm running a 10base2 lan
here with an LC475 included. The LC475 is far slower on the network than
anything else, but I've always put it down to overall hardware. I would
imagine that if you have an ethernet card, it should be designed to use the
full network 'speed' - perhaps you can find some specs for it on the apple
support site?

>
> I reported this to my ISP and he said that the Apple techie was wrong
> and that I should see the full 2Mbps via 10baseT. His full reply was:

I think you were speaking to someone who doesn't deal with old equipment and
just assumes everything will work at the same speed because it has the same
type of card. Everything he says below is right to my knowledge, but I think
irrelevant to your issue.

>

> >The network may be 10Mbps, but it's well-known that Ethernet , being a
> >CSMA/CD type network, will not achieve anything like that in practice,
> >although 2Mbps does seem extremely low. The figure I had in mind was
> >something like 50%-70% of the available bandwidth, but one reference I
> >found quoted 40%:
> >
> >The CSMA/CD article wrote:
> >"Performance of CSMA / CD

How old is this article? I get the feeling its almost talking about my type
of cabling, 10base2, where everything's along one wire.

> >

<cut>

> >
> >
> >A home network with a handful of nodes would not normally be considered
> >a "busy network", so it does raise the question of what protocols are
> >in use on the network? Is a lot of unnecessary traffic being generated?

That does raise a question - are you running Appletalk over the ethernet
aswell? I have no idea but that might slow it down (?) Especially on an
older mac.

> >
> >
> >On the face of it, it does seem unlikely that a 10Mbps Ethernet should
> >not be able to keep pace with your 2Mbps/256kbps ADSL connection.

>
> Can anyone here please clarify this for me. Who is right? TIA.
>
> Stan

Sorry I can't be of more help!
matt

--
matthew fullerton
LC475/MacOS 7.5.5 and LCIII/System 7.1
This message was posted using Outlook Express 6 (sorry)
[email]greatbigblackhole@hotmail.com[/email] is a real address, but don't expect anything
(SPAM or otherwise) to get read



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003

[Stan The Man]

In article <bkmfmf$a03$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>, matt
<greatbigblackhole@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Stan The Man" <macho@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:220920030008177794%macho@mac.com...

>> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
>> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
>> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
>> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
>>
>> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
>> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
>> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
>> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
>>
>> I wondered if the onboard ethernet was the problem since I'm the only
>> one using wires and a specialist networking techie at Apple UK support
>> confirmed that 10baseT would not be able to handle the full 2Mbps. He
>> said I should divide 10 by 8 to get the max throughput, ie 1.25Mbps.

>
>I'd say its more likely the mac itself thats the problem. The car may well
>be able to manage 10MBps, but the graphics updating, file downloading and
>file saving to harddisk may not be able to cope. I'm running a 10base2 lan
>here with an LC475 included. The LC475 is far slower on the network than
>anything else, but I've always put it down to overall hardware. I would
>imagine that if you have an ethernet card, it should be designed to use the
>full network 'speed' - perhaps you can find some specs for it on the apple
>support site?

Hardware limitations are a possibility but I would doubt it since
almost everything has been upgraded (cpu to G4, internal HD to big
7200rpm IBM drive, RAM to 740MB, FW card, USB card, etc) and I use this
machine as my daily workhorse in preference to any of the newer
machines around the place. It seems pretty snappy all round - even in
comparison to my G4 TiBook running Os X and 9) - but of course it still
does have the original motherboard and scsi internal drive buses. I may
try a 100baseT ethernet PCI card to see if that improves anything.

>>
>> I reported this to my ISP and he said that the Apple techie was wrong
>> and that I should see the full 2Mbps via 10baseT. His full reply was:

>
>I think you were speaking to someone who doesn't deal with old equipment and
>just assumes everything will work at the same speed because it has the same
>type of card. Everything he says below is right to my knowledge, but I think
>irrelevant to your issue.
>

>>

>> >The network may be 10Mbps, but it's well-known that Ethernet , being a
>> >CSMA/CD type network, will not achieve anything like that in practice,
>> >although 2Mbps does seem extremely low. The figure I had in mind was
>> >something like 50%-70% of the available bandwidth, but one reference I
>> >found quoted 40%:
>> >
>> >The CSMA/CD article wrote:
>> >"Performance of CSMA / CD

>
>How old is this article? I get the feeling its almost talking about my type
>of cabling, 10base2, where everything's along one wire.

No idea, but you could be right.

>> >

><cut>

>> >
>> >
>> >A home network with a handful of nodes would not normally be considered
>> >a "busy network", so it does raise the question of what protocols are
>> >in use on the network? Is a lot of unnecessary traffic being generated?

>
>That does raise a question - are you running Appletalk over the ethernet
>aswell? I have no idea but that might slow it down (?) Especially on an
>older mac.

I am using Appletalk - set to Ethernet - to communicate with the ADSL
modem/router. I also need AT on in order to run postscript printer
drivers, afaik. And since there is no wireless facility on the 7500, I
don't know how to fileshare from it without using AT. I would love to
kill off AT but I don't think it's possible.

>

>> >
>> >
>> >On the face of it, it does seem unlikely that a 10Mbps Ethernet should
>> >not be able to keep pace with your 2Mbps/256kbps ADSL connection.

>>
>> Can anyone here please clarify this for me. Who is right? TIA.
>>
>> Stan

>
>Sorry I can't be of more help!
>matt

Stan

[matt]

"Stan The Man" <macho@mac.com> wrote in message
news:220920031202051048%macho@mac.com...

> In article <bkmfmf$a03$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>, matt
> <greatbigblackhole@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> >"Stan The Man" <macho@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:220920030008177794%macho@mac.com...

> >> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
> >> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
> >> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
> >> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
> >>
> >> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
> >> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
> >> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
> >> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
> >>
> >> I wondered if the onboard ethernet was the problem since I'm the only
> >> one using wires and a specialist networking techie at Apple UK support
> >> confirmed that 10baseT would not be able to handle the full 2Mbps. He
> >> said I should divide 10 by 8 to get the max throughput, ie 1.25Mbps.

> >
> >I'd say its more likely the mac itself thats the problem. The car may

well

> >be able to manage 10MBps, but the graphics updating, file downloading and
> >file saving to harddisk may not be able to cope. I'm running a 10base2

lan

> >here with an LC475 included. The LC475 is far slower on the network than
> >anything else, but I've always put it down to overall hardware. I would
> >imagine that if you have an ethernet card, it should be designed to use

the

> >full network 'speed' - perhaps you can find some specs for it on the

apple

> >support site?

>
> Hardware limitations are a possibility but I would doubt it since
> almost everything has been upgraded (cpu to G4, internal HD to big
> 7200rpm IBM drive, RAM to 740MB, FW card, USB card, etc) and I use this
> machine as my daily workhorse in preference to any of the newer
> machines around the place. It seems pretty snappy all round - even in
> comparison to my G4 TiBook running Os X and 9) - but of course it still
> does have the original motherboard and scsi internal drive buses. I may
> try a 100baseT ethernet PCI card to see if that improves anything.
>

This just goes to show my lack of knowledge about (new) macs! I thought it
was an older machine. Your problem is indeed very strange :s

matt

> >>
> >> I reported this to my ISP and he said that the Apple techie was wrong
> >> and that I should see the full 2Mbps via 10baseT. His full reply was:

> >
> >I think you were speaking to someone who doesn't deal with old equipment

and

> >just assumes everything will work at the same speed because it has the

same

> >type of card. Everything he says below is right to my knowledge, but I

think

> >irrelevant to your issue.
> >

> >>
> >> >The network may be 10Mbps, but it's well-known that Ethernet , being a
> >> >CSMA/CD type network, will not achieve anything like that in practice,
> >> >although 2Mbps does seem extremely low. The figure I had in mind was
> >> >something like 50%-70% of the available bandwidth, but one reference I
> >> >found quoted 40%:
> >> >
> >> >The CSMA/CD article wrote:
> >> >"Performance of CSMA / CD

> >
> >How old is this article? I get the feeling its almost talking about my

type

> >of cabling, 10base2, where everything's along one wire.

>
> No idea, but you could be right.

> >> >

> ><cut>

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >A home network with a handful of nodes would not normally be

considered

> >> >a "busy network", so it does raise the question of what protocols are
> >> >in use on the network? Is a lot of unnecessary traffic being

generated?

> >
> >That does raise a question - are you running Appletalk over the ethernet
> >aswell? I have no idea but that might slow it down (?) Especially on an
> >older mac.

>
> I am using Appletalk - set to Ethernet - to communicate with the ADSL
> modem/router. I also need AT on in order to run postscript printer
> drivers, afaik. And since there is no wireless facility on the 7500, I
> don't know how to fileshare from it without using AT. I would love to
> kill off AT but I don't think it's possible.

> >

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On the face of it, it does seem unlikely that a 10Mbps Ethernet should
> >> >not be able to keep pace with your 2Mbps/256kbps ADSL connection.
> >>
> >> Can anyone here please clarify this for me. Who is right? TIA.
> >>
> >> Stan

> >
> >Sorry I can't be of more help!
> >matt

>
> Stan

--
matthew fullerton
LC475/MacOS 7.5.5 and LCIII/System 7.1
This message was posted using Outlook Express 6 (sorry)
[email]greatbigblackhole@hotmail.com[/email] is a real address, but don't expect anything
(SPAM or otherwise) to get read



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003

[David Sankey]

In article <220920031202051048%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> Hardware limitations are a possibility but I would doubt it since
> almost everything has been upgraded (cpu to G4, internal HD to big
> 7200rpm IBM drive, RAM to 740MB, FW card, USB card, etc) and I use this
> machine as my daily workhorse in preference to any of the newer
> machines around the place. It seems pretty snappy all round - even in
> comparison to my G4 TiBook running Os X and 9) - but of course it still
> does have the original motherboard and scsi internal drive buses. I may
> try a 100baseT ethernet PCI card to see if that improves anything.

Setting aside any confusion about bits and bytes, which may be the
explanation for the weird response from the Apple engineer, you ought to
be able to do better...

I just tried sending files with Timbuktu to my old back-up server which
is a stock 7200 running System 8.1 using onboard ethernet and achieved
550kB/s over Appletalk and 760kB/s over TCP/IP pushing a 6MB pdf file
(all numbers bytes not bits here), so a pretty impressive go at
flattening the 10Mb/s / 1.25MB/s ethernet into the 7200.

Same game to 7500 with G3, System 9.2.2, fast internal SCSI disk on
internal bus and fast ethernet gives both Appletalk and TCP/IP at around
1.4 MB/s. My general impression is that here you're getting near the
limit of what the 7500 and stock SCSI can do.

My recollection is that downloads on the 7500 with IE typically peaked
in the 200-300 kB/s range.

So even if your original figures were bytes rather than bits things look
sick - if they really were bits then everything is poor and that might
be suggestive of the answer...

See if you can find an old copy of MacTCP watcher as that gave useful
information on the state of incoming duplicate packets and outgoing
retransmits. Try pinging your other computers to see if you're OK to
them, even if the rest of the world is a bit foggy.

Dave

[Alan Charlesworth]

In article <220920030008177794%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
>
> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
>
> I wondered if the onboard ethernet was the problem since I'm the only
> one using wires and a specialist networking techie at Apple UK support
> confirmed that 10baseT would not be able to handle the full 2Mbps. He
> said I should divide 10 by 8 to get the max throughput, ie 1.25Mbps.
>
> I reported this to my ISP and he said that the Apple techie was wrong
> and that I should see the full 2Mbps via 10baseT. His full reply was:
>

> >The network may be 10Mbps, but it's well-known that Ethernet , being a
> >CSMA/CD type network, will not achieve anything like that in practice,
> >although 2Mbps does seem extremely low. The figure I had in mind was
> >something like 50%-70% of the available bandwidth, but one reference I
> >found quoted 40%:
> >
> >The CSMA/CD article wrote:
> >"Performance of CSMA / CD
> >
> >"It is simple to calculate the performance of a CSMA/CD network where
> >only one node attempts to transmit at any time. In this case, the node
> >may saturate the network and near 100% utilisation of the network may
> >be achieved, providing almost 10 Mbps of throughput on a 10 Mbps LAN.
> >
> >"However, when two or more nodes attempt to transmit at the same time,
> >the performance of Ethernet is less predictable (and not covered by
> >this course). The fall in utilisation and throughput occurs because
> >some bandwidth is wasted by collisions and back-off delays. In
> >practice, a busy shared 10 Mbps Ethernet network will typically supply
> >2-4 Mbps of throughput to the nodes connected to it.
> >
> >"As the level of utilisation of the network increases, particularly if
> >there are many nodes competing to share the bandwidth, an overload
> >condition may occur. In this case, the throughput of Ethernet LANs
> >reduces very considerably, and much of the capacity is wasted by the
> >CSMA/CD algorithm, and very little is available for sending useful
> >data. This is the reason why a shared Ethernet LAN should not connect
> >more than 1024 computers. Many Engineers use a threshold of 40%
> >Utilisation to determine if a LAN is overloaded. A LAN with a higher
> >utilisation will observe a high collision rate, and likely a very
> >variable transmission time (due to back off). Separating the LAN in to
> >two or more collision domains using bridges or switches would likely
> >provide a significant benefit (assuming appropriate positioning of the
> >bridges or switches).
> >
> >"Shared networks may also be constructed using Fast Ethernet, operating
> >at 100 Mbps. Since fast Ethernet always uses fibre or twisted pair, a
> >hub or switch is always required."
> >
> >
> >A home network with a handful of nodes would not normally be considered
> >a "busy network", so it does raise the question of what protocols are
> >in use on the network? Is a lot of unnecessary traffic being generated?
> >
> >
> >On the face of it, it does seem unlikely that a 10Mbps Ethernet should
> >not be able to keep pace with your 2Mbps/256kbps ADSL connection.

>
> Can anyone here please clarify this for me. Who is right? TIA.
>
> Stan

I have an old 7600 upgraded with a 500 MHz G3 runing MacOS 9.1 connected
by 10 MHz Ethernet to an Asante Router, which in turn connects to
Comcast cable modem service. The 7600 can max out the cable modem at
around ~200 MByte/sec, as can my other newer Macs running 10.2.6. The
old 7600 also got ATA disks, a PCI graphics card, and 1 GB of memory a
few years ago.

[John Baxter]

In article <220920030008177794%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
>
> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
>

It is correct that Ethernet real maximum throughput is *roughly* half
what one might expect from the 10 megabits per second implied by
10baseT. (I didn't include that part of your quote of the Apple guy.)

But...more likely your problem is Apple's. The built-in Ethernet port
on Macs of roughly the 7500 vintage tended to be broken out of the box,
and produce very slow speeds. The built in interface on my 7300 (not
the same thing, but similar vintage) has been broken from the start. I
could improve it somewhat by shuffling memory around, but it was never
workable.

I simply replaced it with a 10baseT card (later replaced again with a
10/100 card--cheaper of course than the 10baseT card was). These things
are dirt cheap, although how much longer you'll be able to find drivers
for them for ancient Macs is another question.

--John

--
Email to above address discarded by provider's server. Don't bother sending.

[Peter KERR]

John Baxter <news.collectivize@scandaroon.com> claimed:

>
> But...more likely your problem is Apple's. The built-in Ethernet port
> on Macs of roughly the 7500 vintage tended to be broken out of the box,
> and produce very slow speeds. The built in interface on my 7300 (not
> the same thing, but similar vintage) has been broken from the start. I
> could improve it somewhat by shuffling memory around, but it was never
> workable.
>

I don't think it was "broken" per se. It was intended to run on 10Mb/s
networks and it did that reasonably well. When people started plugging
in 10/100 devices it fell apart because it couldn't negotiate speed or
duplicity...

[Alan Charlesworth]

In article <user-0DFAC1.10144325092003@scream.auckland.ac.nz>,
Peter KERR <user@host.domain> wrote:

> John Baxter <news.collectivize@scandaroon.com> claimed:

> >
> > But...more likely your problem is Apple's. The built-in Ethernet port
> > on Macs of roughly the 7500 vintage tended to be broken out of the box,
> > and produce very slow speeds. The built in interface on my 7300 (not
> > the same thing, but similar vintage) has been broken from the start. I
> > could improve it somewhat by shuffling memory around, but it was never
> > workable.
> >

>
> I don't think it was "broken" per se. It was intended to run on 10Mb/s
> networks and it did that reasonably well. When people started plugging
> in 10/100 devices it fell apart because it couldn't negotiate speed or
> duplicity...
>

I have a 7300/200 whose stock motherboard 10 BT Ethenet works fine
plugged into a 10/100 switch, which in turn plugs into a four-port
Asante router, which connects to a cable modem. The 7300 acesses the
cable modem and does Appletalk over IP based file transfers to my newer
100 BT and Airport Macs just fine.

The 7300 does have a 500 MHz G3 CPU upgrade, an IDE disk upgrade via a
PCI card, and a gig of memory. It runs MacOS 9.1. My recollection was
that Appletalk networking peformed much better when I got the G3 CPU
upgrade several of years ago.

[Stan The Man]

In article
<news.collectivize-A7EBE2.17525423092003@corp.supernews.com>, John
Baxter <news.collectivize@scandaroon.com> wrote:

>In article <220920030008177794%macho@mac.com>,
> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>

>> I've been trying to figure out why my vintage 7500/Os9.1 with 10baseT
>> onboard ethernet performs so badly in comparison to the two newer and
>> wireless machines on the same LAN, all hooked up to a 2Mbps ADSL line
>> via a Netgear DG824M modem/router.
>>
>> The wireless machines - a G4 PB (Os 10.2.6 + Airport card) and a WinXP
>> machine with Netgear wireless PCI card - are happily downloading at
>> over 200kb/sec but my 7500 can only manage around 50kb/sec, albeit it
>> bursts to approx 150kb/sec for the first few seconds of any download.
>>

>
>It is correct that Ethernet real maximum throughput is *roughly* half
>what one might expect from the 10 megabits per second implied by
>10baseT. (I didn't include that part of your quote of the Apple guy.)
>
>But...more likely your problem is Apple's. The built-in Ethernet port
>on Macs of roughly the 7500 vintage tended to be broken out of the box,
>and produce very slow speeds. The built in interface on my 7300 (not
>the same thing, but similar vintage) has been broken from the start. I
>could improve it somewhat by shuffling memory around, but it was never
>workable.
>
>I simply replaced it with a 10baseT card (later replaced again with a
>10/100 card--cheaper of course than the 10baseT card was). These things
>are dirt cheap, although how much longer you'll be able to find drivers
>for them for ancient Macs is another question.
>

I have now installed a Kingston 10/100 card and it's working but it
hasn't improved my throughput. Downloads are maxing out at 50k/sec and
uploads are around 12k/sec, measured over several days.

Simon

[Greg Buchner]

In article <101020031243156850%man@pr100.com>,
Stan The Man <man@pr100.com> wrote:

> I have now installed a Kingston 10/100 card and it's working but it
> hasn't improved my throughput. Downloads are maxing out at 50k/sec and
> uploads are around 12k/sec, measured over several days.

I have a Kingston card sitting around unused because it didn't work any
better than the 10Base-T. It seemed to be a driver issue. I had a
later version of the driver from their website (which was later pulled),
but while the data transfer would go fast, I'd get corruption. With the
latest version they now have on their website, I'd get slow transfers.

I replaced it with an Apple 10/100 card. No problems under either OS 9
or OS X and it transfers quickly on my Beige G3.

Greg B.

--
Actual e-mail address is gbuchner and I'm located at mn.rr.com