Thanks for some feedback, Julian. I'm going to be testing with various
fixes to suppress the radiated RF coupling (including tin foil over the
connectors and shield cabling inside). It will be fun to see what
actually works, but I kinda wish I had bought the STP in the first
place. The thing is, since apparently packets are checked, I can still
get decent enough performance a lot of the time, but not 100% of the
time. And the randomness is irritating.
On 8/2/2011 8:40 AM, Julian Zottl wrote:
Tinfoil works well :) If not that, some conduit will do too. If it's
running on the outside of your house, I would put it in conduit anyway.
----
Julian
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Anthony Q. Martin<[email protected]>wrote:
Oops....did it over with the bandwidth value set higher (50m). Got this:
[3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 53.1 MBytes 44.6 Mbits/sec 0.522 ms 3813/ 41719
(9.1%)<=======
did it again with the same 50m but this time using a different PC on my
network. Got this:
[3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 58.7 MBytes 49.2 Mbits/sec 0.694 ms 25/41892
(0.06%)
As can be seen, the second one is way under 1% (see below) while the first
is way over 1%. I'm losing lots of packets probably due to lack of
shielding. Crap!
The cabling under the house is probably too close to something that is
spewing RF. I wonder if I can make some shielding to improve this?
On 8/1/2011 12:59 PM, Thane Sherrington wrote:
At 01:53 PM 01/08/2011, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
What do you mean? they are the points where inference gets in?
That's where I run into connection issues. Other than the occasional
problem where I go in to a spot where some idiot ran the cable and either
ran it alongside power cables stretched it, most of the connection failures
are at the ends. I think you can use iPerf to test data loss on Ethernet.
Or get one of those high end cable testers from Fluke.
Following this site:
http://openmaniak.com/iperf.**php<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
They say this:
"The UDP tests with the -u argument will give invaluable information about
the jitter and the packet loss. If you don't specify the -u argument, Iperf
uses TCP. To keep a good link quality, the packet loss should not go over 1
%. A high packet loss rate will generate a lot of TCP segment
retransmissions which will affect the bandwidth."
In their example, they get this:
------------------------------**------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.1.1.1, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 108 KByte (default)
------------------------------**------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.6.2.5 port 32781 connected with 10.1.1.1 port 5001
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.8 MBytes 9.89 Mbits/sec
[ 3] Sent 8409 datagrams
[ 3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.8 MBytes 9.86 Mbits/sec 2.617 ms 9/ 8409
(0.11%)
That last part is the # of packets that were lost and had to be re-sent.
They got 0.11% and 1% is the upper limit on a quality link. When I run
this test I get this:
3] Server Report:
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.9 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec 1.711 ms 2/ 8505
(0.024%)
So, perhaps this is time dependent and/or condition dependent...or I'm just
barking up entirely the wrong tree.
