link aggregation

[EEVIAC]

Does link aggregation help your computer utilize your Internet bandwidth, or is link aggregation only for LANs?


Reason I ask is because I just did a little experiment where I tested my download an upload speed at speedtest.net.   Using my onboard nic only, I tested the upload/download speeds.. Then adding my 802.11/g Wireless card, I tested again and there was no performance increase, in fact there was a slight decrease in the speed results..

My onboard NIC is 100 mbps and the Wireless card is 54 mbps

[EEVIAC]

I found some answers, I believe..  According to Wikipedia "link aggregation", if I Interpreted it correctly, a couple limitations are that, the speed of the NICs must be identical...There's my first problem..

Second is that the drivers have to support aggregation & the OS has to support aggregation..  According to Wiki, Windows doesn't include any native aggregation software in there OSs...  (Windows 7 might...don't know)   So I guess I'd have to look to third parties for the higher-level support.. and then hope the NICs used have supported drivers..


To sum up, "bonding" two NICs is not a simple as it sounds

[BC_Programmer]

Windows 2000 supports Load-balancing two installed NICs, but I don't think that's the same as link aggregation, and if it is it only works upstream I think.

That being said I don't think it would help you utilize more bandwidth; unless, somehow, you have super-expensive internet that is faster then 100mbps... which you can solve by getting a gigabit adapter

[EEVIAC]

What I was thinking was that my my current nic may be bottlenecking the connection between my Gateway and computer, and that adding another nic would increase the bandwidth between my gateway and computer.   

I think I got the idea from wireless technologies, for example, using an 802.11/b (11 mbps) card you would never get a full 11 mbps, only somewhere around half that because of contributing networking factors like csma/ca (which 802.11/b uses) and the fact that distance from the access point and other users on the network effect the bandwidth... 

However, this is clearly not the case as I thought it was.  My ISP allows 2.8 mbps downloads and even at 5.5 mbps (half of 802.11/b) that's still more than enough to allow 2.8 mbps downloads... Of course this is more so with a 100 mbps nic.. 

When I go to speedtest.net I get something like 2.24 mbps, not my 2.8 mbps.

[Computer_Commando]

What I was thinking was that my my current nic may be bottlenecking the connection between my Gateway and computer, ...When I go to speedtest.net I get something like 2.24 mbps, not my 2.8 mbps.

I assume you have DSL?  If your ISP limits you to 2.8 mbps, you will never see it higher, unless you pay for higher speed.  2.24 is pretty close to the tier you pay for, SpeedTest is a good test.  It could be a bit slower for many reasons.  The bottleneck is the tier, not the computer.

"Link Aggregation" is something like the scheme that DOCIS 3.0 uses for cable modems and also in 802.11n, they call it channel bonding.

[Geek-9pm]

Just one question.
What would it cost to up your service to 5 mega bits per second?

[EEVIAC]

100,000,000,.000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars


shoot I can't afford that!!         


Cable is what, 4 - 100 mbps ?

Maybe I'll upgrade to that, but not now, I don't plan on being here for more than another six months and I don't really need the bandwidth anyway...I was just experimenting..

I've never had cable Internet though.  Is cable flexible as far as how much bandwidth you're allocated?  Isn't that how packet switched ISPs work? 

edit: well what I mean is, for example, T1/E1/T3 are circuit switched networks
and are more expensive for the ISP to set up/maintain, therefore they cost the consumer an arm and leg also..  In packet switched services, the ISP sets up a central office and allocates chunks of it for everyone to share (ie. dsl and cable) so it's cheaper for everyone who wants a type of broadband connection..When compared to cable, dsl is low bandwidth so, I was thinking that cable might allow or be more flexible with how/what they allocate there bandwidth..

[Geek-9pm]

EEVIAC,
No sarcasm meant, but you need to do Networking 101.
The idea of "Packet" switching is to get the most out of a physical connection.

It is not simple Time Division Multiplex.

In practice you can have more open connections that what the physical transport can handle. Many computer activities are interactive, so there is a lot of idle time. That is basically have it works.

The packets are vary short time frames. Most users do not notice a drop in bandwidth until the network gets close to saturation. The system is meant to run overloaded. It is a waste of resources to have more bandwidth than you need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_switching
Read that over with care. As you know, the wikipedia can be very useful,. but often the articles need some editing.

[EEVIAC]

well thanks for the info..  The reason I asked is because I'm not sure I understand what I read about packet switched vs. circuit switched networks... I like to ask about what I think I understand and if someone agrees, then that is somewhat of a confirmation that I really understand it..If they don't agree then I need to brush up, so to speak... That's one of the ways I learn

[Geek-9pm]

I like you pint of view.   

[EEVIAC]

thx..........It has proven to be an efficient way of learning..

By 2015...  I will know ALL     

[BC_Programmer]

Cable varies in speed, for me, it doesn't vary much, since everybody else in my neighborhood (and therefore the same network backbone) is subscribed to Shaw High-speed, whereas I have "XtremeSpeed":



however, I've done speedtest.net tests that scored as "low" as 5mbps; I've also gotten up to 60 mbps a few times. Anyway, I guess that sort of answers your question regarding cable flexibility; I have cable, and the speed I get is determined both by how "busy" the backbone is (basically, my neighbors) as well as my service plan; I have the best I can get for my area; those of us who go for the best probably get preference over those that don't for bandwidth; And it's easy to upgrade the plans for most cable providers; just ring em up, and (for me) it was less then an hour and I was upgraded.

[EEVIAC]

that helps, thx