Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Brooke on November 28, 2013, 07:40:47 PM
-
It takes 10-20 seconds for my network card to achieve connection, which is annoyingly long. By this, I mean that, if I unplug my Ethernet cable then plug it right back in, it takes 10-20 seconds before the link light comes back on, and of course 10-20 seconds before I have a network connection again. I have a machine at work with the same hardware and OS that doesn't do this -- it's reconnection is nearly instantaneous. So, maybe it is a setting somewhere, but I haven't found it if so.
I have already gone into BIOS and disabled all of the "wake on [blah]" functionality for the network. That seemed to help a little (went from taking perhaps 20-30 seconds for reconnection to 10-20), but it is still longer than what I like.
The chip for the network functionality is a Broadcom BCM57788 (Broadcom Netlink Gigabit Ethernet). I have already installed the latest drivers for that chip, and it doesn't change the problem.
I have also gone into the card's advanced settings and tried turning off "wake on magic packet" and "wake on pattern match", neither of which changed the connection time issue at all. I have "allow this device to wake computer" in power management turned off already. Allowing the card to sleep or not makes no difference (as my test is done with the computer on).
Again, the odd thing is that I have another machine that is the same hardware, OS, etc., that doesn't exhibit this behavior. On that one, if you unplug and replug, you right away get the link light back on and network connectivity. Both machines use DHCP, as opposed to fixed IP address, but I don't think that matters, as the IP address lease obtained and lease expires well bracket my test, and the time it takes for the link light to come seems to be independent of whether or not the OS (Windows 7) is even running, as I have boot manager and can do the test when the machine is on, but the OS isn't running yet and still get the same issue.
Any suggestions?
-
Try assigning a static IP address ....see if it takes as long to boot with a connection. If so, great...it's likely the card or a bad driver....if not, need to start considering other potential sources to the problem (bad switch port, bad patch cable, etc).
Simplistic, and not the more methodical approach I'd take to troubleshoot the problem, but close enough.
FYI - never been a huge fan of Broadcom...
Good luck.
-
Try assigning a static IP address ....see if it takes as long to boot with a connection. If so, great...it's likely the card or a bad driver....if not, need to start considering other potential sources to the problem (bad switch port, bad patch cable, etc).
Simplistic, and not the more methodical approach I'd take to troubleshoot the problem, but close enough.
FYI - never been a huge fan of Broadcom...
Good luck.
Howdy, Fulcrum.
I boot it into the boot manager, which isn't even an OS (so no tcp/ip stack yet to change settings in), and can disconnect and reconnect cable to show the behavior.
I've tested and not found that it is the cable or ports.
It might be a driver problem, but if so, it was the same problem in the previous driver and the updated driver, and there is no other driver to get. The office machine with same hardware, OS, and driver doesn't exhibit the same behavior.
My suspicion is that it is a setting somewhere (suggestions there are welcome) or that my chip has a glitch.
-
Then I'd check / compare the settings between the two PCs. I'd also look to see if you have different versions of the driver on each machine. It could well be the chip is bad but I'd try to rule out the above first. Looking at sniffer traces of the packet exchange between the system and the DHCP server might help but only if you have some experience diagnosing packet and frame problems using Tools like Sniffer or Wireshark.
-
I can only sniff packets once the link is established (link light on), I think. Once the link light is on, everything is great.
I looked at settings between the two machines and didn't see any differences, but I'll have to check again in case I missed anything. They should be identical machines, though -- bought together with same configuration, same machine, same hardware, etc.
-
Sounds like the chip to be honest.
If you were using a sniffer you'd want to do it from another machine using either a mirror port on your switch (which most home switches are not capable of), a non-switch device like a hub, or through a man-in-the-middle approach like arp poisoning ah la Ettercap. That way you could see the entire "conversation" between the PC and the DHCP server.
To be honest it's likely not worth the hassle if you have a spare NIC card and a open slot to install it in. Disable the on-board network card, install the spare and forget about it. :D
-
Just from the symptoms, and what you've done to troubleshoot, it sounds like the hardware is failing. Is it onboard? If so, can you get a new MB under warranty?
-
I don't think it's failing, as it has been like this always, and works flawlessly once the connection is established. I wouldn't even have noticed anything if the other machine weren't so fast at establishing connection compared to this one.
I'd be interested to find out from you guys (if you are willing to try a very short test), if you unplug and then replug your Ethernet cable from your computer, how long does it take until link light is back on and how long until you can load a web page.
-
Unplugged the cable from the modem, "cable unplugged" message. Plugged it back, instant reconnect.
-
Howdy, Fulcrum.
I boot it into the boot manager, which isn't even an OS (so no tcp/ip stack yet to change settings in), and can disconnect and reconnect cable to show the behavior.
I've tested and not found that it is the cable or ports.
It might be a driver problem, but if so, it was the same problem in the previous driver and the updated driver, and there is no other driver to get. The office machine with same hardware, OS, and driver doesn't exhibit the same behavior.
My suspicion is that it is a setting somewhere (suggestions there are welcome) or that my chip has a glitch.
Your office probably has an expensive router/switch behind the other end of the cable. That may be a factor.
-
Your office probably has an expensive router/switch behind the other end of the cable. That may be a factor.
I've got it plugged into a cheap DLink 4-port at work and a cheap 8 port TP-link at home.
-
I've got it plugged into a cheap DLink 4-port at work and a cheap 8 port TP-link at home.
Are the two computers really identical, down to versions and bios settings? If yes then you probably got a so called monday sample.
-
TP-Link is bottom of the barrel, not even close to dlink which is really saying something.
-
Yes. TP-Link is absolute crap I'm sorry to say...well beyond Dlink. That may well be the culprit...if you have another switch I'd swap it out to test.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Brooke is it on boot, wakeup or both when it is slow?
ElD
-
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. :aok
-
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. :aok
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.
:salute
-
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 . . . :noid
I don't mind buying a NIC and using that -- it was just a challenge first to see if I could puzzle it out.
-
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.
-
All I can say is that my cheap switches work just fine so far. I have no problems with bandwidth, latency, or dropouts.
-
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 . . . :noid
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would also suggest a network interface card. Then go into device manager and disable the onboard networking.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Is it a CAT6 cable or at the very least CAT5e? If not...yep...that can cause a problem (through not always).
-
Cat5 doesn't work well with gigabit Ethernet. Found it out the hard way: Couldn't get the Internet connection with a Gigabit NIC connected to a Cable Modem which apparently had a Gb jack too. The same cable had worked perfectly with the 100 Mbps built-in NIC of the old computer, and continued working at a replug. Took quite a while to figure out why the new computer wouldn't connect...
-
Is it a CAT6 cable or at the very least CAT5e? If not...yep...that can cause a problem (through not always).
The one with the issue was cat 5 (could be missing Gbit connections, though, not that the cat 5 nature of the copper wire is insufficient). The one that works for Gbit speeds, I'm not sure what it is.
-
When first replying, I read your posts and saw that you tested the cabling. I figured you tried a different cable right off the bat! :lol
Glad you found your issue. :)
-
When first replying, I read your posts and saw that you tested the cabling. I figured you tried a different cable right off the bat! :lol
Glad you found your issue. :)
Yep, I thought in my various testing that I had checked the cable well enough, but obviously not. :uhoh
-
Cat5 doesn't work well with gigabit Ethernet. Found it out the hard way: Couldn't get the Internet connection with a Gigabit NIC connected to a Cable Modem which apparently had a Gb jack too. The same cable had worked perfectly with the 100 Mbps built-in NIC of the old computer, and continued working at a replug. Took quite a while to figure out why the new computer wouldn't connect...
Generally speaking you can use the previous generation of cable for the next generation of speed if you shorten the maximum length by an order of 10 (assuming properly wired). So a Cat 5 good for 100 meters of 100Mb should run 1Gb if you keep it to 10 meters or less. 10 meters is still a pretty long cable. Obviously this is only for home adhoc use, not in-wall or in business.
Personally I bought a spool of 1000 feet of Cat 5 for around $40 in 1996 and I make my own cables for home use as I need them, and if I get the ends on right, never have problems carrying gigabit speeds. In fact, once made and tested, they are more reliable than random patch cables found with power strips, cable modems, etc.
-
Generally speaking you can use the previous generation of cable for the next generation of speed if you shorten the maximum length by an order of 10 (assuming properly wired).
Absolutely correct. The "assuming properly wired" is always a sticking point...especially if I crimped the RJ45. :D
-
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.
Just waiting for a 10Gbe switch to turn up at home :D (yes I'm dead serious)
-
Just waiting for a 10Gbe switch to turn up at home :D (yes I'm dead serious)
Why not? It's not like they're licensed solely for professional use lol.
-
Brooke
What type of motherboard do you have... it may be just a quick fix of updating the drivers for the onboard lan card. I had a similar problem and all it took was to update the driver's. Better than buying a new card.
LawnDart
-
Brooke
What type of motherboard do you have... it may be just a quick fix of updating the drivers for the onboard lan card. I had a similar problem and all it took was to update the driver's. Better than buying a new card.
LawnDart
Howdy, LawnDart. Thanks for the input, but it turned out to be the Ethernet cable (was suitable for 100base-T, but not 1000base-T, and the 10-20 seconds was the nic negotiating down to 100 Mbps from gigabit).