Question for experts on ethernet cards / networking

[Bizman]

As an aside, the TP-link worked very well so far -- no problems yet (but it is new).

Good point. Even the bottom of the barrel items are first class until they fail. After all, they are manufactured to meet certain specs and standards. Durability is not standardized, speed is.

[Drane]

I tried a switch other than TP-link -- no difference.

The machines should be exactly the same, but I'll dig more into it to check more than I have already to see.

As an aside, the TP-link worked very well so far -- no problems yet (but it is new).

Do you have another NIC card you could try? If the onboard NIC is bad it will be cheaper to install a separate NIC to avoid the shipping and downtime for warranty. Just saw one with good reviews for $12 free shipping on Newegg.

[Brooke]

Do you have another NIC card you could try? If the onboard NIC is bad it will be cheaper to install a separate NIC to avoid the shipping and downtime for warranty. Just saw one with good reviews for $12 free shipping on Newegg.

I might try that.

Up to now, I have taken it as a challenge to figure out what is going on.

It is a good idea, if I can't figure it out, to put in a cheap NIC -- it's worth saving 10 seconds several times a day.

[ELD66]

Brooke is it on boot, wakeup or both when it is slow?
ElD

[Brooke]

Brooke is it on boot, wakeup or both when it is slow?
ElD

All of those, plus when I'm in the boot manager.  So when I reboot the machine, it first goes to boot manager and gives me a prompt and sits there waiting for a response.  At that point, there is no OS running, and I can do my test then:

-- See that there is a link light.
-- Unplug and replug the Ethernet cable.
-- See how long it takes for link light to come back on.  (It's 10-20 seconds for the problematic machine, instantaneous for other machines.)

Once the NIC is linked up (after that 10-20 seconds), everything works great.  Fine latency, upload, and download speeds.  No lost packets.  No trouble.

It's just that it annoys me that it takes me an extra 10-20 seconds sometimes that I feel I should have to wait. 

[ELD66]

All of those, plus when I'm in the boot manager.  So when I reboot the machine, it first goes to boot manager and gives me a prompt and sits there waiting for a response.  At that point, there is no OS running, and I can do my test then:

-- See that there is a link light.
-- Unplug and replug the Ethernet cable.
-- See how long it takes for link light to come back on.  (It's 10-20 seconds for the problematic machine, instantaneous for other machines.)

Once the NIC is linked up (after that 10-20 seconds), everything works great.  Fine latency, upload, and download speeds.  No lost packets.  No trouble.

It's just that it annoys me that it takes me an extra 10-20 seconds sometimes that I feel I should have to wait. 

 Desktop or laptop? If its laptop there is a good chance its modular, meaning if you get the correct part you can replace the hardware. If its desktop you would have to replace the motherboard. This problem is 100% hardware, A driver wouldnt cause the light issue, or have you reconnect it. My guess is the port or cable are damaged, if these are the only symptom's I doubt it would be the whole mobo causing only those 3 issues.
 

[Brooke]

It's a desktop, but with built-in Ethernet (so, chip on motherboard).

I looked at settings on the machine at work, and they are the same as on this one at home.

It's a mystery . . . 

I don't mind buying a NIC and using that -- it was just a challenge first to see if I could puzzle it out.

[Vulcan]

Durability is not standardized, speed is.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Switches employ all sorts of different mechanisms that affect throughput. So while you port negotiate at 1Gbps how your data is handled varies greatly from top shelf to bottom of the barrel stuff.

[Brooke]

All I can say is that my cheap switches work just fine so far.  I have no problems with bandwidth, latency, or dropouts.

[katanaso]

It's a desktop, but with built-in Ethernet (so, chip on motherboard).

I looked at settings on the machine at work, and they are the same as on this one at home.

It's a mystery . . . 

I don't mind buying a NIC and using that -- it was just a challenge first to see if I could puzzle it out.

You're a glutton for punishment, even if you enjoy solving the problem.   

It's the onboard chipset!  Pick up a $5 or $10 NIC and try it.

[Bizman]

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Switches employ all sorts of different mechanisms that affect throughput. So while you port negotiate at 1Gbps how your data is handled varies greatly from top shelf to bottom of the barrel stuff.

Thanks for correcting me. I was talking in a larger scale, though, meaning that a 100Mbps device can't be just simply relabeled and sold as a 1Gbps one. I believe there must be some differences in the architecture of devices of different speed categories. But if I'm wrong also here, please feel free to lead me to the right track. I'm no expert in networking, my knowledge is limited to what the specs say.

[Vulcan]

Thanks for correcting me. I was talking in a larger scale, though, meaning that a 100Mbps device can't be just simply relabeled and sold as a 1Gbps one. I believe there must be some differences in the architecture of devices of different speed categories. But if I'm wrong also here, please feel free to lead me to the right track. I'm no expert in networking, my knowledge is limited to what the specs say.

The simple explanation is that sure the plumbing your appear to connect to might look like 1Gbps, but the plumbing behind that might not be able to handle a full load. Switches have all sorts of things behind the scenes that affect how quickly traffic is passed and how the switch performs under load. If you buy a cheap switch and do stuff all on it you may not notice, but if you transfer larges amount of data (e.g. media files) across it then you start to see the issues.

[ELD66]

I would also suggest a network interface card. Then go into device manager and disable the onboard networking.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The simple explanation is that sure the plumbing your appear to connect to might look like 1Gbps, but the plumbing behind that might not be able to handle a full load. Switches have all sorts of things behind the scenes that affect how quickly traffic is passed and how the switch performs under load. If you buy a cheap switch and do stuff all on it you may not notice, but if you transfer larges amount of data (e.g. media files) across it then you start to see the issues.

Yep, consumer products often choke on heavy transfers. That's why I try to choose 'non blocking' network components which at least in theory should be able to handle full loads on all ports.

[Brooke]

OK, I think that it is solved, and the winner is . . . the cable.

I thought that I had tested the cable aspect, but clearly not well enough.

(Just before this, I did put in an Intel gigabit NIC, and it was even worse than my built in Ethernet with respect to taking a long time to connect.)

The weird thing is that the previous cable does connect up (after 10 seconds), and transmission speeds and latency are fine.  Using the previous cable on a device that doesn't have a gigabit Ethernet gives no problem at all with linking -- it's nearly instantaneous like I'm used to.  It is a cat 5 cable, so should work, but maybe some of the wires not used for 100base-T but are used for 1000base-T are faulty.  I think that I have a cable tester around somewhere.  I'll see if I can find it to investigate.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts and recommendations.

My apologies for using up folks' time when I should have not blown it on my cable testing.